[Senate Hearing 116-576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-576

   KEEP ON TRUCKIN': STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON TRUCKING IN AMERICA

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 4, 2020
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
                             
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                        


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-614 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023                   
                
                
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                                 ------                                

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Chairman      TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RICK SCOTT, Florida

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on February 4, 2020.................................     1
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................     1
Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................     2
Statement of Senator Peters......................................     4
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    67
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    70
    Letter of support dated February 3, 2020 for the DRIVE-Safe 
      Act to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwell...........    71
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    74
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    75

                               Witnesses

Dawn King, President, Truck Safety Coalition (TSC); and Board 
  Member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH)........     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Trucking Associations..........................................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Lewie Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent 
  Drivers Association............................................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
Jake Parnell, Manager, Cattleman's Livestock Market on behalf of 
  the Livestock Marketing Association............................    47
    Prepared statement...........................................    49
Sergeant John Samis, Delaware State Police; and President, 
  Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.............................    53
    Prepared statement...........................................    54

                                Appendix

Letter dated January 31, 2020 to Hon. Deb Fischer and Hon. Tammy 
  Duckworth from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent 
  Transportation Society of America..............................    79
Letter dated February 3, 2020 to Hon. Deb Fischer and Hon. Tammy 
  Duckworth from Nathaniel F. Wenecke, Senior Vice President, 
  American Property Casualty Insurance Association...............    81
Cathrine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 
  prepared statement.............................................    82
Response to written questions submitted to Dawn King by:
    Hon. Rick Scott..............................................    90
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    90
    Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................    93
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    95
Response to written questions submitted to Chris Spear by:
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................    96
    Hon. Rick Scott..............................................    98
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    99
    Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................   103
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   105
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   106
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   112
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   113
Response to written questions submitted to Lewie Pugh by:
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................   113
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   114
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   117
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   118
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   119
Response to written questions submitted to Jake Parnell by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   120
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   121
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   122
Response to written questions submitted to Sgt. John Samis by:
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................   122
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   123
    Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................   124
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   126
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   127

 
   KEEP ON TRUCKIN': STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON TRUCKING IN AMERICA

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2020

                               U.S. Senate,
         Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Deb Fischer, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Fischer [presiding], Thune, Moran, 
Capito, Young, Scott, Lee, Duckworth, Blumenthal, and Peters.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. The hearing will come to order. Good 
morning. Welcome to today's hearing of the Senate Subcommittee 
on Transportation and Safety. Both by weight and by volume, 
trucks move more freight domestically in the United States than 
any other form of transportation. This includes first and last 
mile connections, long-haul transportation, and everything in 
between. It is also a major source of employment across our 
country.
    The trucking industry is a key component of our 
transportation network and it is vital to our economy. Today, 
we are going to hear from stakeholders about the current state 
of trucking, and how Federal policy could aid in its safety, 
efficiency, and productivity, particularly as Congress 
considers a Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
    Federal trucking policy has gone through many changes in 
the past decade, including changes in both the industry and 
regulatory changes at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration. Of the many trucking issues I hear about from 
Nebraskans, hours of service is at the top of the list. The 
concerns I hear from truckers are consistent. These regulations 
are inflexible and do not reflect real world situations.
    Further, because the trucking industry is so diverse, a 
one-size-fits-all approach fails to provide common sense 
solutions for each of the different types of operations. 
Congress requires FMCSA to enforce hours of service 
requirements to ensure drivers don't drive while they are 
fatigued and have delegated significant authority to FMCSA to 
develop these requirements. Most recently, FMCSA issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to update the hours of service 
requirements.
    I am encouraged that the agency is taking steps to update 
us regulations and that interested stakeholders have made their 
comments known to the agency. One group in particular that has 
faced challenges with the hours of service regulations is our 
livestock haulers. They have the critical responsibility of 
moving live, perishable products.
    For that reason, livestock haulers can easily find 
themselves in a regulatory bind between the hours of service 
requirement and animal welfare lives. While the hours of 
service regulations have received significant attention, 
several other regulatory changes are worth discussing today. 
Recent regulations set to go into effect include the entry-
level driver-training rule and the drug and alcohol 
clearinghouse, both of which will improve safety. However, in 
both cases, FMCSA has had to delay parts of these rules.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses more about the 
intended impact of these rules on safety. Additionally, the 
FAST Act required FMCSA to take down the safety measure system, 
those scores, from public view. After a study by the National 
Academy of Sciences, FMCSA is now considering how to move 
forward with this program. I expect to hear from the witnesses 
about the impact SMS and the broader compliance-safety 
accountability program has on trucking.
    Other areas impacting truckers and the trucking industry 
include the availability of safe truck parking, advances in 
vehicle and load matching technology, freight availability, and 
the amount of time that truckers spend detained while they are 
waiting for loads.
    Here to provide input on the state of trucking and feedback 
on trucking regulations are Chris Spear from the American 
Trucking Association, Jake Parnell representing the Livestock 
Marketing Association, Lewie Pugh from the Owner-Operator 
Independent Drivers Association, Dawn King from the Truck 
Safety Coalition, and Sergeant John Samis from the Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Association.
    I want to thank the witnesses for traveling today to 
participate in this hearing. I know all of you are widely 
respected within your organizations, and you have unique 
experiences and perspectives that are valuable to us as we 
continue our work to improve the safety and efficiency of 
America's trucking industry. I look forward to your testimony. 
And now I would like to invite my colleague and Ranking Member 
Duckworth to offer her opening remarks.

              STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, and I want 
to apologize to everyone for being late this morning. For a 
former soldier, missing your SP time is really an embarrassing 
thing, so thank you for your patience, and thank you to the 
Chairman for holding today's hearing. I also want to thank all 
of our witnesses for joining us today to discuss some of the 
challenges and opportunities facing U.S. commercial trucking 
industry.
    As I said during last week's hearing, our global 
competitiveness is closely tied to a safe, reliable, and 
efficient transportation network. The nexus between interstate 
commerce and commercial trucking clearly demonstrates the close 
relationship between Federal infrastructure investments and our 
Nation's economic prosperity.
    Of the 18.6 billion tons of freight goods that were moved 
across the United States in 2018, 12 billion tons valued more 
at more than $12 trillion were moved by truck. Illinois is at 
the epicenter of our Nation's freight transportation network, 
offering unparalleled access to global markets. Over 1.2 
trillion tons of freight, valued at nearly $3 trillion, move 
through Illinois each year and trucks carry over half of that 
tonnage, about 664 million tons valued at more than $1 
trillion.
    Investing in my State's freight infrastructure keeps goods 
flowing through the entire system and delivers a tremendous 
return on investment for industries and customers in all 50 
States. Yet, the most important aspect of any efficient 
transportation network is safety. Unfortunately, safety remains 
a work in progress and we have a long way to go. Bottom line, 
we can and we must do better. Our nation endured 36,560 roadway 
fatalities in 2018, including 4,951 fatalities involving large 
trucks. While it is technically accurate that large truck 
fatalities declined 69 percent from 1982 to 2017, it is 
important to recognize that over the last decade, for which we 
have data, from 2009 to 2018, large truck fatalities have 
actually increased by 47 percent.
    We need to keep a close eye on evolving trends and their 
impacts on roadway users. And right now, safety trends suggest 
a reason for concern. Meanwhile, Federal agencies like FMCSA, 
NHTSA, and GAO are pursuing a number of data collection 
efforts, including pilot programs and investigations to analyze 
the impacts of safety-related trucking initiatives.
    These agencies and others like them should have the 
opportunity to provide Congress with the technical analysis and 
stakeholder feedback needed to minimize uncertainty associated 
with untested initiatives. As we move toward FAST Act 
reauthorization, Congress should prioritize and promote the use 
of new safety technologies designed to reduce hazards for law 
enforcement and enhance supply chain efficiencies.
    We should also consider and reinforce the important role 
that states play in commercial trucking and provide the 
necessary space for critical collaborations and partnerships to 
develop for the benefit of improved safety outcomes.
    Finally, Congress should continue to promote meaningful 
benchmarks and metrics designed to enhance safety and 
performance while informing future policy discussions. I look 
forward to debating these and other important topics with an 
eye toward safety as this Committee works in a bipartisan 
manner to establish and reform surface transportation policies.
    Again, I want to thank today's witnesses and our Chairman, 
and I look forward to your testimony.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. At this 
time, we will recognize witnesses for their opening testimony. 
And I would like to recognize Senator Peters who has the, 
really, pleasure and honor to introduce our witness from 
Michigan today.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the 
opportunity. I would like to extend a very warm welcome to our 
witness, a native Michigander, Dawn King. Nearly 15 years after 
suffering from a terrible tragedy that took the life of her 
father, Ms. King has made it her life's work to advocate for 
measures to improve safety on our roadways.
    Ms. King currently serves as the President of the Truck 
Safety Coalition. It is a partnership between Citizens for 
Reliable and Safe Highways Foundation and Parents Against Tired 
Truckers. In this role, Ms. King is a passionate and a tireless 
advocate for safety legislation and an invaluable voice for 
victims on both the state as well as the Federal level.
    Ms. King hails from Davisburg, Michigan, just Northwest of 
Detroit, and is here with her husband Bruce who also advocates 
on truck safety issues. Thank you Dawn for your testimony today 
and thank you Bruce for taking time to meet with me earlier 
this morning and for your work on these very important issues.
    I look forward to your testimony as well as the testimony 
of all the members of this very distinguished panel. Thank you, 
Madam Chair.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Peters. Ms. King, you 
are recognized.

               STATEMENT OF DAWN KING, PRESIDENT,

        TRUCK SAFETY COALITION (TSC); AND BOARD MEMBER,

        CITIZENS FOR RELIABLE AND SAFE HIGHWAYS (CRASH)

    Ms. King. Good morning, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member 
Duckworth, and the other members of the Subcommittee. My name 
is Dawn King and I am President of the Truck Safety Coalition, 
and I am also a Board member of CRASH, which along with Parents 
Against Tired Truckers forms TSC. Thank you very much for the 
opportunity to testify this morning.
    I am here today to give a voice to thousands of survivors, 
victims and families like mine, who have had a loved one killed 
or seriously injured in a tragic but preventable truck crash. 
Here in the hearing room, we have another victim's family 
member, Tracy Kenichi, whose daughter and unborn granddaughter 
were killed on the beltway in D.C.--several years ago, and she 
is here to provide support as well.
    I am here because my father Bill Badger was killed two days 
before Christmas in 2004 by a tired trucker who fell asleep at 
the wheel. Every year thousands of people are dying needlessly 
in truck crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's most recent data show that 4,951 people were 
killed in 2018. That is nearly a 50 percent increase from 2009.
    Additionally, 151,000 people were injured and 885 truck 
occupants were killed, the highest since 1989. Yet even with 
this horrendous rise in truck crash fatalities, important and 
life-saving truck safety laws and regulations are under 
relentless and repeated attacks in Congress and the 
Administration. I assure you these safety rollbacks and repeals 
would never be tolerated in any other mode of transportation, 
especially one with such an unacceptable death and injury toll. 
For example, FMCSA is proposing unsafe changes to the hours of 
service regulations. Furthermore, every session of Congress 
there are attempts to exempt special interests from the hours 
of service rules.
    My written statement goes into detail about how harmful 
these proposals will be to safety and we urge you to oppose 
each of these attacks. Even more difficult to understand is the 
introduced legislation, the so-called DRIVE-Safe Act which 
lowers the minimum age from 21 to 18 to allow teens to drive in 
interstate commerce. There is ample research showing teen 
drivers have significantly higher crash rates and are much less 
safe than older drivers.
    There is absolutely no evidence that introducing teen 
drivers will in any way improve safety. TSC strongly opposes 
this change and so does the American public. Today, Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety released an opinion poll that shows 
that 62 percent of the public opposes this change. What we 
should be doing is focusing on what can be done to promote 
truck safety. Crash avoidance technologies like automatic 
emergency braking have been proven through years of use by 
leading truck companies to reduce the numbers of crashes and 
mitigate the severity.
    Several bills, including S. 2700, the Protecting Roadside 
First Responders Act, have been introduced to require the 
installation of this life-saving technology. We commend Senator 
Duckworth for her leadership in co-sponsoring that legislation 
with Senator Durbin. Additionally, there is clear and 
convincing evidence that speed limiters make trucking safer. 
This life-saving technology is not new and has been used in 
other countries for years.
    In the U.S., it has been a standard component on most 
trucks since the late 1990s. Many truck companies voluntarily 
set their trucks to a safe speed, but all trucks should be 
using speed limiters. And truck underride crashes are some of 
the most horrific crashes imaginable, particularly when violent 
intrusion occurs into the passenger compartment. We urge Senate 
passage of bipartisan legislation, S. 665, the Stop Underrides 
Act, which would strengthen rearguards as well as improve 
underride protections on all sides of the tractor-trailer. This 
bill is sponsored by Senator Gillibrand and co-sponsored by 
many members of this committee including Senators Duckworth, 
Markey, Udall, Blumenthal, and Peters.
    All of these technologies can prevent serious and deadly 
crashes. However, when a crash involves a truck company that is 
underinsured, the results can be devastating. Today, the 
minimum amount of insurance required per truck, per crash, no 
matter how many victims, is only $750,000. That was set 40 
years ago and it has never been increased. Many victims of 
truck crashes struggle to pay for lifelong medical and rehab 
expenses. We urge Senate introduction and support for H.R. 
3781, the Insurance Act. This bill will increase the minimum 
insurance required and account for medical cost inflation, 
which then would be indexed every 5 years.
    In conclusion, the families of victims and the survivors of 
large truck crashes remain hopeful that members of this 
committee will make sure that safety never takes a backseat to 
industry profits or political pressure.
    And, I would like to take a moment right now to wish my dad 
a happy birthday. Had he not been killed 15 years ago by a 
tired trucker in a completely preventable crash, he would be 
turning 91 today. I can't call him. I cannot talk to him 
tonight, like I would have. I cannot send him a card, but I can 
offer this testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, 
and I am pleased to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Dawn King, President, Truck Safety Coalition 
   (TSC); and Board Member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways 
                                (CRASH)
Introduction
    Good morning Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth and Members 
of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Dawn King and I am the President of the Truck Safety 
Coalition (TSC) as well as a board member of the Citizens for Reliable 
and Safe Highways (CRASH) Foundation, which along with Parents Against 
Tired Truckers (PATT) forms TSC. I appreciate the invitation and the 
opportunity to testify this morning before the Subcommittee.
    I am from Davisburg, Michigan, so I am heartened that another 
Michigander, Senator Peters, serves on this Subcommittee. 
Unfortunately, I am not here before this Subcommittee today to 
represent families from my state but also everyone from every state who 
everyday uses our roads and highways. I am here today to give a voice 
to survivors and victims of large truck crashes and to families, like 
mine, who have lost a loved one in these preventable and tragic 
catastrophes.
    My father, Bill Badger, was killed fon December 23, 2004, just over 
the Georgia state border, by a tired trucker who fell asleep at the 
wheel and crashed into his car. At the time of the crash, Dad was on 
his way to the airport to fly to New Jersey and join me and my siblings 
for Christmas. That year, was particularly tough for us since our Mom 
had passed away in July. The truck driver, who fell asleep and smashed 
into Dad's car, stated that he had been driving all night in order to 
get to Atlanta by 7:00 a.m. so that he could be assigned to another 
truck which was headed to Florida in order to be with his family for 
Christmas. In the end, however, neither my family nor his were whole 
that holiday.
    Shortly after Dad's crash, my family and I were fortunate enough to 
connect with the Truck Safety Coalition. This wonderful organization is 
a partnership between Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) 
Foundation and Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT). Our shared 
mission is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-
related crashes, provide compassionate support to truck crash survivors 
and families of truck crash victims, and educate the public, policy-
makers and media about truck safety issues.
Truck Crashes, Injuries, and Deaths Have Been on the Rise Since 2009
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) most 
recent release of data shows that fatal crashes involving at least one 
large truck killed 4,951 people in 2018. To put this figure in 
perspective for you: it is approximately 2.5 times as many people as 
the total number of individuals who have served in the U.S. Senate 
since 1789.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44762.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2009, fatalities from crashes involving at least one large 
truck have gone up 46.5 percent, with 42 out of the 50 states 
experiencing increases. Unsurprisingly, the subset of states with truck 
speed limits of 75 mph or more saw the largest spike in deaths, rising 
66.5 percent in that same time.
    In that same 9-year time frame, truck crash injuries have tripled 
from an all-time low of 51,000 (which is still staggeringly high) to 
151,000. This is an unacceptable and unconscionable trend.
    Amidst this significant increase in deaths and injuries and this 
marked decline in truck safety, the Truck Safety Coalition and our 
volunteers hope that members of this Subcommittee will oppose specific 
anti-safety policies that are being considered by Congress and the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. Additionally, we urge you to support 
numerous lifesaving measures that can significantly reduce the death 
and injury toll on our roads. Truck crash deaths and injuries are a 
major public health problem and we urgently need Congress to direct the 
implementation of data-driven solutions to address the pervasive but 
preventable problems, like driver fatigue, distraction, and speeding, 
that contribute to so many truck crashes. My statement today seeks to 
inform Members and the public about both the dangerous policies that 
will further exacerbate truck safety and available safety solutions 
that could dramatically improve truck safety for motorists and 
commercial drivers.
Now is Not the Time to Weaken Truck Safety Rules and Permit Special 
        Interest Rollbacks of Proven Safety Reforms
FMCSA Should Abandon Efforts to Weaken the Hours of Service Rules
    Last year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comments on 
unstudied, unsafe proposed changes to the Hours of Service (HOS) 
regulations, including:

   Extending by two hours the maximum window during which 
        driving is permitted under the adverse driving conditions 
        exemption to the HOS rules;

   Extending the driving window from 12 hours to 14 hours and 
        extending the distance from 100 air miles to 150 air miles for 
        the short haul exemption;

   Allowing drivers to split their required 10 hours off-duty 
        into two periods: one period of at least seven consecutive 
        hours in the sleeper berth and the other period of not less 
        than two consecutive hours, either off-duty or in the sleeper 
        berth; and

   Requiring a 30 minute break after eight hours of driving 
        time instead of on-duty time, and allowing the requirement to 
        be satisfied by an on-duty break from driving, rather than 
        requiring an off-duty break;

   Allowing split duty period: one off-duty break of at least 
        30 minutes, but no more than three hours, that would pause a 
        truck driver's 14-hour working window, provided the driver 
        takes 10 consecutive hours off-duty at the end of the work 
        shift.

    FMCSA's Proposed Change = Unsafe and Unwarranted--Adverse Driving 
Conditions:

   Extend by two hours the maximum window during which driving 
        is permitted under the adverse driving conditions exemption to 
        the HOS rules.

    In the NPRM, the FMCSA asserted that this proposed change to the 
adverse driving conditions exemption would not increase driving time or 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thus there would be no safety concern. 
Yet, this ignores the effect that longer shifts have on injury risks 
and error rates.
    There is compelling research that found lengthening a work day 
results in increased injury risk to a worker. One study found that 
injury risks go up after eight hours on task, with a 30 percent 
increase on a 12-hour task.\2\ This validates the findings from an 
earlier major meta-analysis of relative risk of performance lapses over 
the course of different shift durations that found risk was 
approximately doubled after 12 hours of work and trebled after 14 hours 
of work.\3\ More recently, a study was performed to identify associated 
factors with multidimensional driving risks, specifically focusing on 
fatigue, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and health status among 
Korean occupational drivers; one of the key findings: ``those working 
for longer than 12 hours per day . . . were a vulnerable group.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Folkard, Simon, and David A. Lombardi. ``Modeling the Impact of 
the Components of Long Work Hours on Injuries and `Accidents.' '' 
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 49, no. 11, Nov. 2006, 
pp. 953-963., doi:10.1002/ajim.20307.
    \3\ Folkard, Simon. Time On Shift Effects In Safety: A Mini-Review, 
Abstract in the Shiftwork International Newsletter, May 1995, 12:1, 
Timothy Monk, ed., presentations from the 12th International Symposium 
On Night-and Shiftwork, Ledyard, CN, June 13-18, 1995.
    \4\ Kwon,S.,Kim,H.,Kim,G.S.,Cho,E.,2019.Fatigue and poor sleep are 
associated with driving risk among Korean occupational drivers. 
J.Transp.Health14,100572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even if a driver logs the same number of hours on duty or driving, 
this proposed change would result over a longer elapsed time which 
would result in a longer day overall.
    FMCSA's Proposed Change--Short Haul Operations:

   Extend the driving window from 12 hours to 14 hours, and

   Extend the distance from 100 air miles to 150 air miles.

    This proposed change will result in more truck drivers being able 
to be considered ``short-haul'' drivers which ultimately means fewer 
carriers being required to use electronic logging devices. Based on the 
FMCSA's own reasoning in finalizing the ELD mandate, this will greatly 
diminish safety. In fact, the agency noted in October 2017 in the 
Federal Register that ``[the ELD] rule improves commercial motor 
vehicle (CMV) safety . . . for both motor carriers and driver by 
increasing the use of ELDs within the motor carrier industry, which 
will, in turn, improve compliance with applicable HOS rules.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 80 FR 78293
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Considering the aforementioned finding, it is critical that the 
agency provide compelling evidence that expanding the number of long-
haul truck drivers who would be eligible to employ the short-haul 
exception, if this proposed change is promulgated, will actually 
improve commercial motor vehicle safety.
    Several years ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS) conducted a study that found a statistically significant 383 
percent increase in crash risk for drivers operating under a short-haul 
exemption. In light of this startling statistic, it seems unlikely that 
the FMCSA will furnish data showing that this proposed change will 
benefit to CMV safety. In fact, our streets and roads will be even more 
dangerous and the change should be summarily rejected.
    FMCSA's Proposed Change--Sleeper Berth:

   Allow drivers to split their required 10 hours off-duty into 
        two periods: one period of at least seven consecutive hours in 
        the sleeper berth and the other period of not less than two 
        consecutive hours, either off-duty or in the sleeper berth.

    The split sleep berth exception must ensure that a truck driver has 
enough time to achieve restorative sleep.\6\ A recent study published 
in Transportation Research Part F, indicates that ``in previous 
studies, sleeping duration less than seven hours has been associated 
with increased cases of drowsy driving crashes among truck drivers 
(Tzamalouka et al., 2005). Drivers who were partially sleep deprived 
(sleeping less than 4-h daily) were found to be at 4.8 folds higher 
risk of falling asleep at the wheel as compared to the sufficiently 
sleeping (6-8 h) drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Sando, T., Mtoi, E., Moses, R.; Potential Causes of Driver 
Fatigue: A Study on Transit Bus Operators in Florida, Transportation 
Research Board 2011 Annual Meeting, Nov. 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, Maia et al., (2013) also found that as compared to the 
drivers taking appropriate sleep of 7 h, the drivers taking short (6 h) 
and very short (<5 h) duration of sleep were at 2 and 3.8 times higher 
risk of drowsy driving respectively.''
    Based on these compelling studies, the FMCSA should immediately 
rescind this alarming proposed change until they can provide undisputed 
research and information disproving the adverse effects of sleeping 
less than seven hours.
    FMCSA's Proposed Change--30-Minute Break:

   Require a break after eight hours of driving time instead of 
        on-duty time, and

   Allow the requirement to be satisfied by an on-duty break 
        from driving, rather than requiring an off-duty break.

    At a time when truck occupant deaths are at their highest levels 
since 1989, the FMCSA must provide convincing evidence and peer-
reviewed research that removing the requirement of a 30-minute break 
after 8 hours of on-duty time will improve safety, for truck drivers 
and the general public.
    The FMCSA acknowledges in their NPRM that these proposed ``changes 
to the 30-minute break provision . . . do not involve any increase to 
the 11-hour driving limit.'' While this may be true, this change could 
result in a driver working 11 hours before he can take a 30-minute 
break. This is unquestionably dangerous. A 2013 study found ``that 
time-on-task across 14 hours of work impacts risk. The risk of being 
involved in a [safety critical event] generally increased as work hour 
increased. That is, driving time that occurred later in the driver's 
workday, due to performing non-driving tasks earlier in the workday, 
had a negative safety effect.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Susan A. Soccolich, Myra Blanco, Richard J. Hanowski, Rebecca 
L. Olson, Justin F. Morgan, Feng Guo, Shih-Ching Wu. An analysis of 
driving and working hour on commercial motor vehicle driver safety 
using naturalistic data collection, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 
Volume 58, 2013, Pages 249-258,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other research corroborates the notion that extending continuous 
time on task, which this change would do, has a deleterious effect on 
safety. Simo Salminen, a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of 
Occupational Health, reviewed eight studies that showed the ``risk of 
occupational injury was 41 percent higher for 10-hour working days 
compared to 8-hour working days . . . [and] when working more than 12 
hours per day, three studies showed a 98 percent increase in 
involvement in occupational injury. The results of this study showed 
that shift work considerably increased the risk of occupational injury 
in the USA . . . Extended working hours was related to elevated risk of 
occupational injury'' (emphasis added).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Salminen, Simo. ``Shift Work and Extended Working Hours as Risk 
Factors for Occupational Injury.'' The Ergonomics Open Journal, vol. 3, 
2010, pp. 14-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No data has been provided to determine the safety benefit of 
substituting a full 30-minute off-duty break with the proposed 30-
minute on-duty break. Specifically, the FMCSA has not assessed the 
impact of a potential change on worker performance at the end of the 
day, whether it is a 14-hour day or a 17-hour that could be achieved if 
the split-duty proposal is promulgated.
    FMCSA's Proposed Change--Split-Duty Period:

   Allow one off-duty break of at least 30 minutes, but no more 
        than three hours, that would pause a truck driver's 14-hour 
        working window, provided the driver takes 10 consecutive hours 
        off-duty at the end of the work shift.

    This proposed change would extend a truck driver's day to 17 hours 
elapsed time. While there are no studies examining the effect on safety 
of this longer day, it is worth reiterating: ``driving time that 
occurred later in the driver's workday, due to performing non-driving 
tasks earlier in the workday, had a negative safety effect.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Susan A. Soccolich, Myra Blanco, Richard J. Hanowski, Rebecca 
L. Olson, Justin F. Morgan, Feng Guo, Shih-Ching Wu. An analysis of 
driving and working hour on commercial motor vehicle driver safety 
using naturalistic data collection, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 
Volume 58, 2013, Pages 249-258
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The proposal also does not limit the use of the 17-hour window 
throughout the workweek. This is extremely troubling considering that 
the FMCSA has not studied the effects this will have on cumulative 
fatigue, which has been acknowledged as a serious, but ultimately 
preventable, safety concern.
    Lastly, our organization is concerned that this may be used by high 
risk carriers and/or in concert with existing exceptions, like the one 
that exists for the transportation of livestock. Used together by a 
high risk carrier, this could allow an unsafe truck driver to operate 
well over 24 hours continuously because ``time spent working within the 
150 air-mile radius does not count toward the driver's daily and weekly 
limit.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-hours-
service-hos-and-agriculture-exemptions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Each of these proposed changes threatens safety by themselves, but 
if they are used in combination and without restrictions on which 
carriers may employ them, the results could be devastating. We hope 
that the Members of the Subcommittee will urge the FMCSA to immediately 
withdraw all five of these proposals.
Exemptions to the HOS Rules for Agricultural Commodities Sacrifice 
        Safety and Undermine Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement 
        Efforts
    Transporters of agricultural commodities and farm supplies for 
agricultural purpose already enjoy exceptions to the Hours of Service 
and Electronic Logging Devices rules. Unfortunately, efforts by 
Congress and inappropriate actions taken by the FMCSA have expanded the 
scope of exemptions.
    Prior to the enactment of MAP-21, drivers transporting 
``agricultural commodities'' and ``farm supplies for agricultural 
purposes'' \11\ within a 100 air-mile radius (115 miles) were exempt 
from the Hours of Service (HOS) regulations. Following enactment of 
MAP-21, the regulatory exception was extended to 150 air-mile radius 
(172.5 miles). Then, on May 31, 2018, the FMCSA released regulatory 
guidance applicable to all transporters of agricultural commodities, 49 
CFR 395.1(k)(1), but does not address ``farm supplies for agricultural 
purposes'' under 49 CFR 395.1(k)(2) or (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Quoted terms are defined in 49 CFR 395.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Truck Safety Coalition strongly opposed these past 
congressional actions as well as the agency's inappropriate use of 
regulatory guidance to further expand the agricultural commodity 
exception to life-saving rules that help prevent truck driver fatigue. 
Below are critical reasons:

   Exemptions to HOS Regulations Weaken Safety--Exemptions to 
        Federal motor carrier safety regulations compromise safety, 
        erode uniformity, and weaken enforcement efforts.

   Regulatory Changes Cannot Occur Through Issuance of Guidance 
        --The FMCSA's does not have the legal authority to enact such a 
        regulatory change through a guidance. The statute and ensuing 
        regulation denote that the exception for transporters of 
        agricultural commodities is for drivers engages in trips within 
        the 150 air-mile radius, not beyond it. Moreover, the guidance 
        creates a legal definition of source without legislation or a 
        rulemaking.

   The Regulatory Guidance is Unstudied and Unsafe--Permitting 
        drivers to operate within a 172 mile radius of a source, which 
        includes not only farms and ranches but also intermediate 
        storage and loading facilities, during planting and harvesting 
        periods, which are year round in some states, will contribute 
        totruck driver fatigue. The public shares the roads with large 
        trucks, including haulers of agricultural commodities, and 
        these changes put motorists and truck drivers at risk of death 
        and serious injury.

    The Truck Safety Coalition urges the Members of the Subcommittee to 
review the FMCSA's Regulatory Guidance Exempting Transporters of 
Agricultural Commodities from Hours of Service and Electronic Logging 
Device Mandates, and to oppose any additional efforts to further expand 
this dangerous special interest exemption.
Research and Data Clearly Warn About the Dangers of Teenage Truckers
    The Truck Safety Coalition strongly oppose efforts to change 
Federal requirements to allow drivers under the age of 21 to operate 
commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce for several reasons:

  (1)  Years of research and data clearly show that 18-20-year-old 
        drivers have significantly higher crash rates;

  (2)  The impetus for this change--a shortage of truck drivers--is a 
        myth perpetuated by those with a pecuniary interest in lowering 
        the legal age for interstate truck operations;

  (3)  The FMCSA has not analyzed data from the 48 states that could 
        provide data on the safety records of 18-20 year old drivers 
        who currently operate in intrastate commerce;

  (4)  The So-Called DRIVE-Safe Act is anything but safe. The so-called 
        protections are meaningless and insufficient.
The Available Data Show that 18-20 Year-Old Drivers are More Likely to 
        Crash
    Research that examined the effect of age on the operation of a 
large truck found that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers under the 
age of 19 are four times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes, 
and that CMV drivers between the ages of 19 to 20 are six times more 
likely to be involved in fatal crashes.\12\ These statistics alone 
should stop legislation from moving advancing with this pernicious 
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates by Driver 
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295 
(1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, there is even more compelling and convincing data that 
show all drivers ages 18 to20 are less safe and more likely to crash 
than an older driver. Based on 2017 Federal crash data analyzed by the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, teen drivers ages 18 to 19 are 
2.3 times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older (up to age 84) to 
be in a fatal crash and nearly 3.5 times more likely to be involved in 
any police reported crash.\13\ Moreover, a recent report analyzing 10 
years of fatal crash data involving teen drivers from the Governors 
Highway Safety Association revealed two other disconcerting data points 
about 18 to 20 year old drivers: (1) 19-year-olds accounted for the 
greatest number of teen drivers killed during this 10-year period, 
followed by 20-and 18-year olds; and, (2) older teens (18-20-years-old) 
were twice as likely as their younger counterparts to be involved in a 
fatal crash between midnight and 6 a.m.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 2017 FARS Data analyzed by the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety. See data analysis at https://www.iihs.org/topics/teenagers
    \14\ Governors Highway Safety Association. 2017. Mission Not 
Accomplished: Teen Safe Driving, the Next Chapter https://www.ghsa.org/
sites/default/files/2016-12/FINAL_TeenReport16.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Impetus for This Change--A Shortage of Truck Drivers--is a Myth 
        Perpetuated by Those with a Pecuniary Interest in Lowering the 
        Legal Age for Interstate Truck Operations
    There is no truck driver shortage. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Report, ``Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers 
broken?'' from September 2018: ``The occupation of truck driving is 
often portrayed by the industry and in the popular press as beset by 
high levels of turnover and persistent ``labor shortages'' . . . [But] 
a deeper look does not find evidence of a secular shortage.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Stephen V. Burks and Kristen Monaco, ``Is the U.S. labor 
market for truck drivers broken?,'' Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, March 2019, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, an investigative report by Barron's, ``Busting the 
`Truck Shortage' Myth,'' found that the Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 
from which this myth derives was ``vague about its methodology, simply 
asserting that a shortage exists and will get worse over time as demand 
rises and existing truck drivers retire.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Klein, Matthew C. ``Busting the 'Trucker Shortage' Myth.'' 
Barron's, Barrons, 14 Mar. 2019, www.barrons.com/articles/busting-the-
trucker-shortage-myth-51552589481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon reading the Barron's expose, the Truck Safety Coalition 
reviewed the American Trucking Associations' (ATA) Truck Driver 
Shortage Analysis from 2015, 2017, and 2019 as well as The U.S. Truck 
Driver Shortage: Analysis and Forecasts prepared for the ATA by Global 
Insight, Inc. in May of 2005. While the latter report has formed the 
underlying basis on which the shortage myth is predicated, there are 
several assumptions the 2005 report makes that did not come to fruition 
and should thus call into question the accuracy of any report, study, 
or assertion by trucking interests that references it.
The FMCSA Has Not Analyzed Data from the 48 states that Could Provide 
        Statistics on the Safety Records of 18-20 Year-Old Drivers who 
        Currently Operate in Intrastate Commerce
    Collecting safety data from the 48 states where truck drivers ages 
18 to 20 can operate within state lines should be the agency's first 
step before moving forward with this potentially risky pilot program. 
Doing so would help the agency determine if these 18-20 year old 
drivers are, in fact, as safe as or safer than the average truck driver 
who operates in interstate commerce.
    Currently, all but two states allow teen truck drivers to operate 
in intrastate commerce so there should be adequate data on the relative 
crash risks of teen truckers that operate within state lines.
    For example, the Truck Safety Coalition requested data on truck 
driver by age from the state of New York. Their data revealed that from 
2009 to 2017, there was a 12.6 percent increase in the total number of 
truck drivers involved in crashes within New York, but for truck 
drivers age 18-20 involved in crashes in NY that figure jumped 17.8 
percent in that same time.\17\ Clearly, figures like this undermine 
arguments that younger truck drivers will be as safe as or safer than 
older drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Data retrieved from Institute for Traffic Safety Management & 
Research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The So-Called DRIVE-Safe Act is Anything But Safe. So-called 
        Protections are Meaningless and Insufficient
    The Truck Safety Coalition strongly opposes all efforts to lower 
the driving age for interstate trucking, including enactment of the so-
called ``DRIVE-Safe Act'' (H.R. 1374/S. 569).
    The probationary period, which is far too short, requires teen 
truckers to train on commercial vehicles equipped with certain safety 
technologies. While the legislation denotes that these younger, less 
safe drivers must learn to operate trucks equipped with automatic 
emergency braking (AEB) and heavy vehicle speed limiters, there is 
nothing in the bill requiring them to do so after their brief 
probation. The consequence of this could be deadly. A teen trucker, who 
learned to drive a big-rig where the speed is limited at 65 mph and 
equipped AEB may be operating a truck without those technologies.
    TSC strongly opposes the FMCSA's pilot program as well as currently 
introduced legislation to allow teen truckers to operate in interstate 
commerce. In the face of ample research showing that teen drivers are 
much less safe and more likely to crash than their older cohorts, the 
FMCSA has furnished no evidence that introducing this age demographic 
of truck drivers to interstate operations will in any way improve 
safety. In fact, the opposite will occur.
Urgent Action Needed Now to Strengthen Truck Safety Rules, Promote 
        Data-Driven Strategies and Require Proven Safety Technologies
Research and Practice Prove the Effectiveness of Automatic Emergency 
        Braking and Speed Limiters to Reduce Truck Crash Deaths and 
        Injuries.
    Automatic emergency braking (AEB) is a commercial motor vehicle 
safety technology that has been proven through years of use by leading 
trucking companies to reduce the number of crashes their truck drivers 
are involved in and to mitigate the severity of truck crashes that do 
occur.
    The Truck Safety Coalition, along with Advocates for Highway and 
Auto Safety (Advocates) and the Center for Auto Safety, filed a 
petition to initiate a rulemaking that would mandate automatic 
emergency braking. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) granted this petition in October of 2015. Since then, several 
pieces of legislation, including the Safe Roads Act (H.R. 3773) and the 
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act (S. 2700 / H.R. 4871) have 
been introduced to require the installation and use of this lifesaving 
technology with minimum performance requirements. We commend Sen. Tammy 
Duckworth, Ranking Member, of this Subcommittee for her leadership in 
co-sponsoring this legislation with Sen. Richard Durbin.
    The safety benefits of AEB technology are well known. In the United 
States, some motor carriers have been using AEB for at least 10 years 
and have established beyond question its effectiveness and reliability. 
For example, Con-way (now a part of XPO Logistics) saw reductions in 
their rear-end crashes after they equipped their trucks with AEB. The 
company performed an internal study to determine the extent to which a 
suite of safety technologies (AEB, electronic stability control (ESC), 
and lane departure warning) installed on the trucks in its fleet 
reduced the frequency of various types of collisions. They found that 
trucks equipped with the suite of safety systems had a lower crash rate 
and frequency of engagement in risky driving behavior compared to 
vehicles without such systems; these trucks exhibited a 71 percent 
reduction in rear-end collisions and a 63 percent decrease in unsafe 
following behaviors.\18\ Similarly, Schneider National, a major 
trucking company, experienced a 69 percent decrease in rear-end crashes 
and 95 percent reduction in rear-end collision claims since it began 
equipping all new tractors with OnGuard Collision Mitigation Systems in 
2012.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2015. The Use of Forward 
Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes. 
Special Investigation Report NTSB/SIR-15-01. Washington, DC.
    \19\ Dr. Christopher B. Lofgren, Chief Executive Officer, Schneider 
National at Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine 
Infrastructure, Safety, and Security Hearing on February 15, 2017, 
Moving America: Stakeholder Perspectives on our Multimodal 
Transportation System. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/hearings?ID=059064F8-8D58-4725-98BC-61CC53DBCB08
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the past, a major concern with requiring this technology had 
been cost. Previously cited figures pegged the price of AEB at around 
$2,500. However, this figure is grossly inaccurate. A September 2018 
study by the NHTSA found that the incremental cost of automatic 
emergency braking systems to the end-user (i.e a truck driver) is 
$70.80-$316.18.\20\ We expect that when AEB becomes standard equipment 
on all newly manufacturer trucks that the cost will drop significantly 
as it has with other safety equipment required on cars and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ NHTSA. September 2018. Cost and Weight Analysis of Heavy 
Vehicle Forward Collision Warning (FCW) and Automatic Emergency Braking 
(AEB) Systems for Heavy Trucks. Final Report. https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2011-0066-0092
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, there is convincing and evidence confirming that 
speed limiters make trucking safer.
    This life-saving technology is not new, and has actually been a 
standard component in most trucks' engine control modules since the 
late 1990s. This is because so many other countries, like Germany, 
United Kingdom, and France, already require their use on commercial 
motor vehicles. In light of this fact, most trucks in the United States 
would not require a retrofit to have this technology but would instead 
simply need to have their speed limiter set.
    It should not come as a surprise that many of the most profitable 
trucking companies voluntarily set their trucks to safe speeds. Speed 
limiters also help motor carriers save significant money on fuel as 
well as on maintenance costs for tires and brakes, which last longer by 
limiting excessive speeding that can exacerbate normal wear and tear. 
More importantly, it improves the safety of their fleet and reduces the 
maximum potential damage their trucks can cause in the event they do 
crash.
    The research confirms what these trucking companies know from 
practice: speed limiters make trucks safer. The FMCSA's own road-based 
study from 2012 found that heavy trucks not using their speed limiters 
were involved in highway-speed crashes at twice the rate of those using 
them.
    Several years later, the Province of Ontario conducted a study to 
review the effectiveness of requiring large trucks to use speed 
limiters. The Province found that the incidence of heavy trucks 
speeding in a crash dropped a dramatic 73 percent following 
implementation of the speed limiter mandate. Another important finding 
of this study was that it directly debunked the claim that speed 
differentials would lead to an increase in overall crashes involving 
big rigs. In fact, the study found no evidence of such an increase.
Increasing the Minimum Levels of Insurance Required by Motor Carriers 
        is Long Overdue. Too Many Families Have Suffered Since 1980.
    The minimum level of insurance of $750,000 for commercial motor 
carriers has not been increased in the U.S. in 40 years. Neither has it 
been adjusted for inflation or, more appropriately, for medical cost 
inflation. Consequently, some families not only face the physical and 
emotion hardship of losing a loved one but also the financial 
devastation caused by under-insured motor carriers.
    According to the legislative intent of the Motor Carrier Act of 
1980 (Pub. L 96-296), minimum levels of insurance were meant to serve 
as a barrier to entry for unsafe carriers and to shift the burden of 
oversight from the government to the private sector (i.e., the 
insurers). Sadly, insurers fail to apply appropriate scrutiny because 
the amounts are so abysmally low.
    In order to remedy this issue, we urge Senate introduction of a 
companion bill to the INSURANCE Act (H.R. 3781), which increases this 
minimum to account for medical cost inflation and then index it to that 
measure every five years. Since 1980, truck weight limits have 
increased significantly as have speed limits for trucks; the 
combination of these two changes has resulted in an increase in crash 
severity.
Strengthening Rear Underride Guards and Requiring Side Underride Guards 
        are Long Overdue.
    In a truck underride crash, a passenger vehicle travels under the 
trailer, bypassing the crumple zone and airbag deployment safety 
features. As you can imagine, or if you've seen this type of crash, the 
results are catastrophic, especially when passenger compartment 
intrusion occurs. In order to prevent this type of collision, trailers 
can be equipped with energy-absorbing rear and side underride guards 
that would protect car occupants from going underneath at certain 
speeds.
    While rear underride guards are required, crash tests conducted by 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) clearly demonstrate 
that the rear underride guards mandated for trailers by NHTSA in 1998 
performed poorly. Furthermore, there are underride guards available 
today that far exceed the proposed force requirement by up to 70 
percent.
    In light of this important finding coupled with the known safety 
benefits of rear underride guards, there has been a recent push to 
strengthen the requirements for rear underride guards in the U.S. After 
two Roundtable events hosted at IIHS, which brought together safety 
advocates, engineers, and trucking interests, major progress on rear 
underrides has occurred in two ways: (1) Eight out of the eight leading 
trailer manufacturers have developed rear underride guards that qualify 
for the IIHS ToughGuard rating, which greatly exceeds the existing 
Federal standard by preventing underride crashes at 100, 50, and 30 
percent overlaps at 35 mph, and (2) there is growing consensus in 
support, evidenced by Mr. Pugh noting just last week that ``We [OOIDA] 
agree to the rear guards. We don't have a problem with that.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/investigations/underrides/
truckers-open-to-tougher-underride-standards-with-a-catch/65-ffa5d38f-
b7b6-48aa-9eba-6ee139a78718
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We urge Senate passage of bi-partisan legislation, the Stop 
Underrides Act (S. 665), which would not only strengthen the 
requirement for rear underride guards, but would comprehensively 
improve underride protections on all sides of a tractor-trailer. This 
bill is sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and co-sponsored by many 
Members of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee including 
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Tom Udall, Sen. Gary Peters 
and Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
Conclusion
    On behalf of the Truck Safety Coalition and our volunteers, I urge 
Congress to advance these bills and provide the much-needed actions and 
oversight to improving truck safety. To rollback truck safety 
protections and pass bills that degrade safety will lead to more 
crashes, deaths, injuries and costs. Before this week is over nearly 
100 people will needlessly die in a truck crash, the equivalent of a 
major airplane crash and hundreds of families will mourn the loss of a 
loved one just like I did when my father was killed.
    The families of victims and survivors of large truck crashes remain 
hopeful that Members of this Subcommittee will ensure that safety never 
takes a back seat to profits or political pressure. Too many families 
in your states and across the country are depending on you to make the 
right decision to keep us safe as we share the roads with large trucks.
    To close, I want to take this opportunity to wish my dad a happy 
birthday. Had he not been needlessly killed by a tired trucker 15 years 
ago, he would have turned 91 years old today. I love you Dad.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and I am 
pleased to answer your questions.

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Ms. King. Next, I would like to 
introduce Chris Spear, the President and CEO of the American 
Trucking Associations, which represents the 50 state trucking 
associations and other trucking industry stakeholders. Welcome, 
Mr. Spear.

    STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
             OFFICER, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Spear. Thanks, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member 
Duckworth, and Subcommittee members. For 87 years, ATA remains 
the largest national trade organization representing the 
trucking industry. With affiliates in all 50 states, our 
membership encompasses over 34,000 motor carriers and 
suppliers, represents every sector of the industry, and 80 
percent of ATA membership is comprised of small carriers. 
Trucking moves 70 percent of the Nation's freight tonnage worth 
over $10 trillion.
    More than 80 percent of U.S. communities rely exclusively 
on trucks for their freight needs. The trucking industry is 7.7 
million people strong, accounting for one in every 18 jobs in 
the U.S., where a truck driver is the top job in 29 States. My 
written testimony focuses on safety and technology, workforce 
development, and infrastructure, and it is grounded in data.
    From 1980 to 2017, America witnessed a 71 percent drop in 
combination truck involved fatal crashes, yet fatalities on our 
Nation's highways climbed in recent years. We can and we must 
do better. The cause is clear, distracted driving. Seventy 
percent of large truck crashes had no truck driver related 
factors recorded, fueled largely by the growing addiction to 
speeding and texting.
    Technology is key: including ELDs, cameras, automated 
emergency braking, and adaptive cruise control. Like pilots and 
planes, we will continue to see drivers in trucks, a future 
based not on driverless technology, but driver-assist 
solutions. We applaud the Secretary of Transportation for her 
leadership on technology, including preserving the seven bands 
of 5.9-gigahertz spectrum for safety, connecting cars, trucks, 
and infrastructure using AEB to save lives. The FCC wants to 
hand this spectrum to big cable so you can download YouTube 
videos faster. Please stop the shameless assault on public 
safety.
    We need more tools to populate the FMCSA's drug and alcohol 
clearinghouse, including technology that detects marijuana 
impairment. Employers must be allowed to use hair testing as a 
sole screening method. It has been three years since this 
Committee instructed HHS to issue such rules. Sounds to me like 
a few cubicle dwelling bureaucrats are now thumbing their noses 
at you and public safety by keeping this scientifically proven 
and successfully deployed method from enforcing the law that 
you passed. They need to be held accountable.
    Trucking is now short 60,800 drivers and must hire 1.1 
million new drivers over the next decade, made harder by a 50-
year low unemployment. We need more women, minorities, 
veterans, exiting service men and women, and a focus on 
improving the safety and health and wellness of our current 
workforce. We need access to the next generation of drivers. 
Forty-nine states currently allow an 18-year-old to drive a 
Class A commercial vehicle, making it legal to drive an 850 
miles stretch of California, yet it is federally illegal to 
drive from Providence, Rhode Island to Rehoboth, Massachusetts, 
a mere 10 miles.
    The heavily bipartisan DRIVE-Safe Act would require 400 
hours of apprenticeship training and safety technology. Forty-
nine states require none of this, making the DRIVE-Safe Act a 
step towards safety and ATA recommends its immediate passage. 
Lastly, America cannot lead with a Third World infrastructure. 
Trucking is 4 percent of the vehicles on our roads. We pay half 
the tab into the highway trust fund and are willing to pay 
more. Here is why.
    Trucking now losses $70 billion each year sitting in 
congestion. That is 425,000 drivers sitting idle for an entire 
year, 67 million tons of CO2 being emitted. 
Passenger vehicle drivers now lose $1,600 a year due to traffic 
and repairs. These are the costs of doing nothing.
    Under ATA's Build America Fund, one nickel, one nickel a 
year for 4 years would generate $340 billion in new revenue, 
shoring up the soon to go broke highway trust fund without 
adding a dime to the deficit. It is immediate. It is 
conservative. Less than $0.01 on the dollar to administer it 
versus $0.35 on the dollar for tolls. Business and labor are 
100 percent behind the Build America Fund, and you passing it 
would be a major victory for America's roads and the millions 
of voters that use them each day. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive 
                Officer, American Trucking Associations
    Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of the 
distinguished subcommittee, thank you for providing the American 
Trucking Associations (ATA)\1\ with the opportunity to testify before 
you today. I would like to begin my testimony by recognizing your 
leadership and focus on improving the safety and efficiency of our 
Nation's highways. The trucking industry stands ready to work hand-in-
hand with this subcommittee, Congress, and the Administration to assist 
in the development of a well-funded surface transportation 
reauthorization bill, and bring an end to the continuous cycle of 
underinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure, which results in 
significant harm to both our economy and the safety of the motoring 
public. Under your guidance, we remain hopeful that Federal action can 
solve this growing national crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade 
association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of 50 
affiliated state trucking associations and industry-related conferences 
and councils, ATA is the voice of the industry America depends on most 
to move our Nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or on Facebook. 
Trucking Moves America Forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATA is an 87-year old federation and the largest national trade 
organization representing the trucking industry, with affiliates in all 
50 states. ATA's membership encompasses over 34,000 motor carriers and 
suppliers directly and through affiliated organizations. Our 
association represents every sector of the industry, from Less-than-
Truckload to Truckload, agriculture and livestock to auto haulers, and 
from the large motor carriers to the owner operator and mom-and-pop one 
truck operations. In fact, despite the claims by some that ATA only 
represents the ``mega-carriers,'' 80 percent of our membership is 
comprised of small-sized carriers, whereas only 2 percent of our 
membership would be considered large-sized carriers. And, our 
federation has members in every state, congressional district and 
community.
    Trucking is the focal point of the United States' supply chain. 
This year, our industry will move 70 percent of the Nation's freight 
tonnage, and over the next decade will be tasked with moving three 
billion more tons of freight than it does today while continuing to 
deliver the vast majority of goods.\2\ More than 80 percent of U.S. 
communities rely exclusively on trucks for their freight transportation 
needs. In 2017, the goods moved by trucks were worth more than $10 
trillion.\3\ The trucking industry is also a significant source of 
employment, with 7.7 million people working in various trucking-related 
occupations, accounting for 1 in every 18 jobs in the U.S.\4\ 
Furthermore, ``truck driver'' is the top job in 29 states.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2018 to 2029. American Trucking 
Associations, 2018.
    \3\ 2017 Commodity Flow Survey Preliminary Report. U.S. Census 
Bureau, Dec. 7, 2018.
    \4\ American Trucking Trends 2018, American Trucking Associations.
    \5\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/keep-on-truckin-in-a-
majority-of-states-its-the-most-popular-job-2015-02-09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without trucks, our cities, towns and communities would fail to 
thrive and flourish, and would lack key necessities including food and 
drinking water; there would not be clothes to purchase, nor parts to 
build automobiles and fuel to power them. The rail, air and water 
intermodal sectors would not exist in their current form without the 
trucking industry to support them. Trucks are central to our Nation's 
economy and our way of life, and every time the government makes a 
decision that affects the trucking industry, those impacts are also 
felt by everyday Americans and the millions of businesses that could 
not exist without trucks.
    We appreciate the subcommittee's focus today on the trucking 
industry, as it is the nexus connecting infrastructure, interstate 
commerce and safety. As Congress looks towards the next surface 
transportation reauthorization bill, many of the topics addressed today 
will shape the drafting of a legislative and regulatory framework that 
trucking will operate under in the years to come.
    The trucking industry is on the cusp of a transformation in the 
movement of freight-one that you and your colleagues will lead and 
greatly influence. Radical technological change will, in the near 
future, allow trucks to move more safely and efficiently, and with less 
impact on the environment than we ever dared to imagine. Yet we are 
facing headwinds, due almost entirely to government action or, in some 
cases, inaction, which will slow or cancel out entirely the benefits of 
innovation. Failure to maintain and improve the highway system that 
your predecessors helped to create will destroy the efficiencies that 
have enabled U.S. manufacturers and farmers to continue to compete with 
countries that enjoy far lower labor and regulatory costs and 
standards.
    For the purpose of this hearing, I will focus my testimony on three 
key areas that will have the greatest and most immediate impact on the 
trucking industry: (1) Safety and Technology; (2) Workforce 
Development; and (3) Infrastructure.
    ATA looks forward to working with this subcommittee, and each and 
every Member of Congress, as we pursue the legislative and regulatory 
framework that will ensure our Nation's surface transportation needs 
are met. That framework must be grounded in safety, science, data and 
training. We commend you for holding this important hearing, to the 
benefit of the trucking industry, interstate commerce, and the millions 
of Americans and U.S. businesses that rely on the safe and efficient 
movement of our Nation's goods.
1) SAFETY & TECHNOLOGY:
    The safety of our Nation's roads and bridges, and that of the 
motoring public, is unquestionably of paramount importance. Safety, 
which anchors the foundation of the trucking industry, shapes our core 
values and decision-making. That is why the trucking industry invests 
approximately $10 billion annually in safety initiatives, including 
onboard vehicle technologies such as electronic logging devices, 
collision avoidance systems, and video-event recorders. Investments 
also include driver safety training, driver safety incentive pay, and 
compliance with safety regulations (e.g., pre-employment and random 
drug tests and motor vehicle record checks). While some of these 
investments are made to meet a myriad of regulatory requirements, many 
of them are voluntary, progressive safety initiatives adopted by our 
members. And, they are paying dividends in highway safety. That being 
said, there is still more work to be done, and we are committed to the 
goal of accident and fatality-free highways.
    Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth, the below section 
highlights the trucking industry's safety record, and the many ways in 
which our members continually work to improve upon it. Our members work 
persistently to adopt processes and best practices that will make their 
fleets even safer. Meaningful improvements will require an 
acknowledgement of the principal causes of truck crashes and a 
commitment to making appropriate, data-driven countermeasures the 
highest priority.
b THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY'S SAFETY RECORD:
    Since 1980, when the trucking industry was deregulated, both the 
number of fatal truck crashes and rate of fatalities have declined 
dramatically:\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017,Trends chapter, Table 4, 
page 7, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/data-
and-statistics/461861/ltcbf-2017-final-5-6-2019.pdf.

   From 1980-2017, there has been a 69 percent decrease in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        large truck-involved fatal crash rate;

   From 1980-2017, there has been a 71 percent decrease in the 
        combination truck-involved fatal crash rate; and

   In 2017, 72 percent of large truck crashes had no truck 
        driver-related factors recorded in multiple-vehicle crashes.

    The decline in large truck-involved fatal crashes since 1980 is 
due, in part, to industry-supported initiatives, many of which were 
used prior to becoming a mandated Federal regulation. For example, the 
use of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) was prevalent in ATA member 
fleets dating back to the early 2000s. Now, federally mandated use of 
ELDs has already had a positive effect on safety.
    ATA members support the use and deployment of additional 
initiatives that will improve safety, such as a requirement for states 
to provide an employment notification system to alert employers of 
drivers' moving violations and license suspensions in a timely fashion, 
the use of alternative testing specimens to detect drug use, and 
vehicle safety technologies that create a safer environment for all.
    And in a recent example of our ongoing commitment to safety, this 
past fall ATA updated its decade-old speed governing policy to reflect 
a more holistic approach on speed governing that recognizes safety 
technologies widely deployed in fleets today. The updated policy 
includes provisions for the use of Automatic Emergency Braking and 
Adaptive Cruise Control technology. Further, the policy includes a 
direction that the Department of Transportation conduct a recurring 5 
year review of speed governing regulations to ensure that the 
regulations are appropriate and consistent with currently deployed 
technologies. Through this new policy, ATA believes that the 
development and promotion of important safety technologies, coupled 
with speed control measures, will result in the greatest positive 
impact on road safety.
b TRUCK CRASH CAUSATION STUDY AND CRASH DATA:
    For the trucking industry to continue improving upon our safety 
record, we must focus more research and attention on the causes of 
truck-involved crashes, with a particular emphasis on countermeasures. 
Specifically, according to multiple studies, data, and other 
indicators, the vast majority of large truck-involved crashes are the 
result of driver behavior and errors. Furthermore, data indicates that 
other motorists, not the professional truck driver, are more likely to 
be at fault. According to a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA) report, 70 percent of fatal crashes involving a large truck and 
a passenger vehicle are initiated by the actions of, or are the fault 
of, passenger motorists.\7\ The American Automobile Association (AAA) 
conducted their own version of this study and found that in truck-
related crashes, the critical factor leading to the crash was 
attributed to the passenger vehicle driver 75 percent of the time.\8\ 
Additionally, the AAA study found that in 10,732 fatal car-truck crash 
records from 1995-98, the car drivers were more likely to be cited for 
multiple unsafe acts. The study found that 36 percent of car drivers 
were cited for two or more unsafe acts, versus 11 percent of truck 
drivers. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor 
Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration, January 2013, page xii, footnote 2.
    \8\ Kostyniuk LP, Streff FM, Zakrajsek J. Identifying Unsafe Driver 
Actions that Lead to Fatal Car-Truck Crashes. Washington DC: AAA 
Foundation for Traffic Safety, April, 2002.
    \9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June 2019 when I testified before the House Transportation & 
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways & Transit, I reiterated ATA's 
desire for an updated Large Truck Crash Study. ATA was pleased to see 
FMCSA's recent announcement that it will conduct a Large Truck Crash 
Causal Factors Study (LTCCFS).\10\ It has been nearly 15 years since 
the last major investigation into the causes of, and contributing 
factors to, crashes involving commercial motor vehicles. In the 
intervening time, data has shown an uptick in the rates of truck-
involved crashes.\11\ To better understand this increase, we need 
accurate data that can direct our efforts and resources to deploy 
appropriate countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 85 Fed. Reg. 2481 (January 15, 2020).
    \11\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017,Trends chapter, Table 4, 
page 7, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, Washington, D.C. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/data-and-statistics/461861/ltcbf-2017-
final-5-6-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATA plans to coordinate with FMCSA to design a study that can be an 
effective tool in evaluating the causal factors contributing to truck-
involved accidents. At this juncture, we particularly highlight the 
need for FMCSA to use a sufficiently large sample size that includes 
all segments of our industry and reflects real-world applications. 
Understanding the role of driver behavior in crash causation will shed 
additional light on how FMCSA's use of enforcement funding and 
resulting activity can be most cost-effective.
    Just as a LTCCFS will help identify the cause of large truck 
crashes, unified electronic crash report data will help to provide 
accurate and timely data on truck-involved crashes. Several states have 
already adopted electronic collection of crash reports, and many of 
those have seen the ability to provide more timely and accurate 
information to stakeholders. Real-time data allows law enforcement and 
transportation safety professionals to respond more quickly to 
escalating trends and ``hot spots,'' and helps ensure limited resources 
are allocated to areas with the greatest need. ATA supports Federal 
funding for states to adopt electronic crash report data collection, 
along with funding support to upgrade existing systems, implement 
NHTSA's Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria data fields, and training 
of staff on new systems.
b ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES:
    ATA was pleased to see the ELD rule go into full effect last 
December and adamantly opposes any legislative efforts that seek to 
undermine it. Many ATA members have used ELDs long before initial 
implementation of the ELD rule in December 2017. Accordingly, we whole-
heartedly support the industry-wide adoption of ELDs, and the 
significant impact this critical technology has on improving public 
safety--a technology requirement that was fully litigated, widely 
debated, congressionally-mandated, and reaffirmed by FMCSA's denial of 
several ELD exemption requests.\12\ Compared to the outdated pen and 
paper methods of tracking driver hours, ELDs are a modern-day 
technology that have proven to be more accurate, easier to enforce, 
more difficult to falsify, and--most importantly--have and will 
continue to save lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ 83 Fed. Reg. 63194 (December 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opponents of the ELD implementation argue that the device has made 
highways unsafe by not allowing a driver to rest when tired. ATA, with 
its core principles rooted in a strong commitment to highway safety, 
would adamantly oppose any device that does not allow a driver to rest 
when tired. The simple fact is that ELDs have not changed the hours-of-
service (HOS) rules that have been in place since the early 2000s. The 
requirements governing how long a driver may operate a commercial 
vehicle, or the minimum amount of time a driver must be off-duty, were 
not affected by the implementation of ELDs. ELDs have simply replaced 
the traditional ``paper log'' with an electronic version that 
automatically records a driver's duty status based on electronic data 
from the vehicle's engine and GPS location data.
    There is, however, irrefutable evidence that ELD technology has 
proven effective in improving safety and increasing compliance. Since 
the December 18, 2017, ELD implementation date, HOS violations have 
dropped by more than half the violation rate prior to ELD 
enforcement.\13\ Now that the ELD grandfather period--allowing fleets 
to use Automatic Onboard Recording Devices (AOBRD) in lieu of an ELD--
has come and gone, fleets have adopted the required technology and are 
compliant. We note, for example, that due to FMCSA's partnership with 
industry to conduct an effective awareness campaign, the final deadline 
for enforcement passed largely without consequence. And since April 1, 
2018, less than 1 percent of the over 5 million driver roadside 
inspections have resulted in a driver being cited for not having an ELD 
or grandfathered AOBRD.\14\ FMCSA's 2014 report titled ``Evaluating the 
Potential Safety Benefits of Electronic HOS Records'' quantified the 
benefits of ELD use, finding that carriers using ELDs saw an 11.7 
percent reduction in crash rate and a 50 percent reduction in HOS 
violations compared to those who had not adopted this safety 
technology. The study concluded that ``the results show a clear safety 
benefit, in terms of crash and HOS violation reductions for trucks 
equipped with ELDs.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Electronic 
Logging Device Hours-of-Service Violation Information Graphic. 
Retrieved January 27, 2020, from https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov/File/Open/
18f45f72-df16-e41b-e053-0100007fe49a.
    \14\ Ibid.
    \15\ 79 Fed. Reg. 27041 (May 12, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b HOURS OF SERVICE:
    As the trucking industry has adjusted to the December 2017 
implementation of ELDs, concerns have been raised by varying segments 
of the industry regarding the need for greater flexibility in 
commercial motor vehicle operators HOS. While HOS regulations are 
designed to provide the framework for the safe and efficient movement 
of goods, there has come to light the need for increased HOS 
flexibility to provide drivers the ability to adjust to changing road 
and weather conditions, congestion and sensitive truck loads.
    As such, ATA applauds FMCSA's recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM), which, in various ways, will give drivers the flexibility 
necessary to safely and efficiently manage operations. As FMCSA 
advances this NPRM to a final rulemaking, ATA emphasizes that any new 
flexibilities should be based on sound evidence and sufficient data to 
assure safety. Data that supports how changes to HOS improve safety 
is--and should always be--foremost in any rulemaking. Changes that lack 
the proper data and science supporting a safety benefit should not be 
considered.
    Additionally, while ATA would encourage the subcommittee to exert 
its oversight role in considering and reviewing FMCSA's final 
rulemaking, we caution the subcommittee on dangerous and reactive 
legislation that is not grounded in safety, science or data, such as 
S.1255, the Transporting Livestock Across America Safely Act. The 
legislation as drafted is a dangerous overreach, more than doubling the 
number of hours currently deemed safe for continuous commercial motor 
vehicle operation. While ATA understands and appreciates that livestock 
and agricultural haulers are a unique sector of the industry facing 
distinctive HOS challenges that should be reviewed and safely 
addressed, more than 24 hours of straight driving is not safe in a car, 
and it is even less so while transporting a trailer filled with 
livestock. This bill, and others like it, threaten the safety of the 
motoring public traveling on our highways, and should be rejected 
outright by this subcommittee and Congress.
b EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION SYSTEM:
    ATA believes FMCSA should establish a national employer 
notification system to provide motor carrier employers with timely 
alerts to driver license actions, such as suspensions, revocations, and 
convictions for moving violations. Use of this system should be 
voluntary, at least initially. Under the current process, motor 
carriers often are not notified about drivers' convictions in a timely 
manner. Employers are required to check each driver's record once per 
year, and this check may reveal violations committed up to 11 months 
earlier. Employees are required to notify their employer of a violation 
of any State or local traffic law (other than a parking violation) 
within 30 days of a conviction, and of a license suspension, 
revocation, or cancellation within one day. However, they are often 
reluctant to do so because of the potential negative ramifications on 
their employment. FMCSA estimates that at least 50 percent of drivers 
may not notify employers of convictions and licensing actions within 
the required time-frames.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Driver Violation Notification Service Feasibility Study, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, July 2005, figure 1, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2007, a pilot ENS program was conducted to assess the 
feasibility, cost, safety impact, and benefits of such a system. The 
pilot program, tested in Colorado and Minnesota, allowed motor carriers 
to register, with the driver's express permission, which enabled them 
to receive timely electronic notification of driver convictions and 
suspensions. The results of the pilot indicated that a nationwide ENS 
was needed and could have significant safety and monetary benefits for 
motor carriers. In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) supported FMCSA's plans to develop and implement a 
national driver record notification system for commercial vehicle 
operators. ATA supports a standardized ENS approach and advocates for a 
national ENS system.
b DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLEARINGHOUSE:
    Since the late 1990s, ATA has supported the establishment of a 
database to close a known loophole in existing regulations that allows 
CDL drivers who test positive for prohibited substances to escape the 
consequences of their actions. As a result of the 2012 highway 
reauthorization legislation (MAP-21), FMCSA published a final rule in 
December 2016 creating a Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse that would act 
as a central repository for drug and alcohol violations of CDL drivers, 
allowing carriers to search this clearinghouse when hiring a driver for 
the first time and on an annual basis. On January 6, 2020, the 
clearinghouse became operational; however, it experienced significant 
connectivity issues due to the high number of users accessing the 
system. FMCSA has worked to address these issues, and on January 22, 
2020, announced the system had been returned to full functionality.
    However, given these initial difficulties, ATA urges Congress to 
take the necessary steps ensure the problems experienced during the 
initial rollout of the clearinghouse do not reoccur, and that any 
current or future problems are resolved expeditiously. Furthermore, 
FMCSA should address what steps are being taken to ensure a high level 
of compliance with the clearinghouse requirements from both a motor 
carrier and laboratory reporting standpoint.
b COMPLIANCE, SAFETY, ACCOUNTABILITY:
    Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) was launched by FMCSA in 
2010 as a way to use data to streamline enforcement programs and target 
the least safe motor carriers for enforcement intervention. Since its 
inception, the methodology behind CSA ``scores'' have been called into 
question with regard to their correlation with future crash risk. The 
relationship between scores and crash risk is a reflection of the many 
methodology and data problems that plague the system. These include the 
flawed weighting of violations, a lack of data on a large portion of 
the motor carrier population, and the scoring of carriers on all 
crashes they are involved in, regardless of fault. In light of these 
issues, Congress requested that both the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) and the DOT Inspector General's (I.G.) office conduct 
reviews of the CSA program and its scoring methodology. Both entities 
confirmed that the system is still grappling with serious flaws. In 
December 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which removed motor 
carrier's CSA scores from public view while the National Academies of 
Science (NAS) conducted a thorough review of CSA.\17\ The FAST Act also 
stipulated that FMCSA must prepare a corrective action plan to address 
the shortcomings identified by the study and remove carriers' CSA 
scores from public view until the study and resulting implementation 
plan were completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
2017. Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement. Washington, DC: The 
National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June 2018, FMCSA released their corrective action plan 
responding to the NAS review of CSA.\18\ FMCSA indicated that they 
would pursue a different methodology, known as an Item Response Theory 
(IRT), and would conduct testing of the IRT methodology to determine 
its accuracy in identifying motor carriers who are at risk for future 
crashes. As of the date of this testimony, the agency has yet to 
implement any changes to the CSA program. Motor carriers seek changes 
to this program so that they are not mischaracterized by a flawed 
scoring system that has proven ineffective in identifying unsafe 
carriers. Congress should continue to monitor FMCSA's corrective 
actions, and ensure that any changes to the CSA system are available 
for stakeholder review and comment, prior to implementation. During the 
period of time that such changes are made, CSA scores should continue 
to remain hidden from public view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ The National Academy of Sciences Correlation Study, Corrective 
Action Plan Report to Congress. Retrieved January 27, 2020, from 
https://cms8.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/mission/
policy/407251/nas-correlation-study-corrective-action-plan-enclosure-
final-june-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b HAIR TESTING:
    An increasing number of motor carriers are conducting pre-
employment and random drug tests using drivers' hair as a testing 
sample. Hair tests provide a better, longer picture of an applicant's 
past drug use and are more difficult than other testing methods to 
subvert. However, since urine is the only sample type permitted under 
DOT regulations, companies that voluntarily conduct hair tests must do 
so in addition to mandatory urine tests. This duplicated time and 
expense deters fleets from adopting this more effective testing method. 
To help eliminate this redundancy and incentivize more fleets to 
conduct hair testing, ATA strongly supports the recognition of hair 
testing as a federally-accepted drug testing method.
    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA) has long expressed an interest in recognizing hair testing as 
a federally-accepted drug testing method, and has been developing 
guidelines to recognize hair testing since the early 2000s. 
Unfortunately, progress has been inexcusably slow. As a result, in 2015 
as part of the FAST Act. Congress directed the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ``issue scientific and 
technical guidelines for hair testing as a method of detecting the use 
of controlled substances for purpose of section 31306 of Title 49, 
United States Code'' by December 4, 2016.\19\ Unfortunately, this 
Congressionally-mandated deadline is now more than 3 years overdue. 
However, ATA is encouraged that HHS is finally working to address the 
Congressional mandate by sending proposed guidelines to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Sec. 5402, (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The development of standards by HHS will pave the way for regulated 
employers to use this testing method and allow them to identify a 
higher number of safety-sensitive employees who violate both Federal 
drug testing and medical qualification regulations. Additionally, 
having hair testing as a recognized alternative drug testing method 
would give motor carriers the ability to report positive hair test 
results to drivers' subsequent prospective employers through FMCSA's 
now-implemented Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol 
Clearinghouse.
    ATA applauds the Commerce Committee for continuing to take a 
proactive approach on this issue, most recently considering and 
approving S.2979, the Preventing Opioid and Drug Impairment in 
Transportation. The legislation requires Federal entities to study 
impaired driving countermeasures and to provide employers with the 
necessary tools to deter prohibited drug use. That includes a 
requirement for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) to investigate ways to better detect and reduce impaired 
driving, and a requirement for the U.S. DOT to lead a study on the use 
of roadside oral fluid drug screening. The bill also works to advance 
the long-overdue development of Federal hair testing guidelines by 
requiring status updates from both the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Department of Health and Human Services.
    ATA urges Congress and this subcommittee to apply further pressure 
on HHS to pave the way toward adoption of this important safety 
initiative. Unfortunately, while this country in recent years has seen 
prescription opioid abuse grow to an epidemic, and a correlated uptick 
of drug-impaired driving, we continue to wait for these critical 
technical guidelines to be completed, so that DOT can recognize the use 
of hair testing as a federally-accepted drug testing method.
b MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION & IMPLICATIONS FOR ROAD SAFETY:
    The recent marijuana legalization efforts have uniquely challenged 
our industry, and have led to critical issues of workplace and highway 
safety. Since 1991, DOT has required mandatory alcohol and controlled 
substance drug testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions in 
all transportation modes. As states move to legalize marijuana, the 
trucking industry, just like the rest of American society, is 
evaluating and considering changes with respect to marijuana laws. Our 
members also recognize that public opinion toward marijuana 
legalization has dramatically shifted over the last two decades. 
However, trends and popular opinion don't always lead to good policy, 
and while debates about decriminalization are timely, policies that 
limit employer drug testing programs to the detriment of transportation 
safety will result in more crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
    An example of this can be found in S.2227, the Marijuana 
Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019, 
legislation also introduced in the House and recently approved by the 
House Judiciary Committee. While well-intentioned, the MORE Act 
neglects to recognize the significant impact removing marijuana from 
the schedule of controlled substances will have on both highway and 
workplace safety. Unlike with alcohol, there is no national enforceable 
impairment standard for marijuana. With no established consensus on an 
impairment threshold, employers are unable to measure levels of 
impairment, which complicates our industry's best efforts to maintain 
road and workplace safety. Employers must be able to test for marijuana 
as a condition of employment, especially when an employee's use could 
adversely impact the safety of our Nation's roads, bridges, and 
motoring public. Before Congress legalizes recreational marijuana use, 
Congress must consider the safety implications of this legislation by 
establishing the necessary tools to protect highway and workplace 
safety. We stand ready to assist Congress in this timely effort.
b AUTOMATED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES:
    As I have testified before the Commerce Committee in the past, the 
trucking industry remains firmly supportive of automated vehicle (AV) 
technologies, which we believe will help make our industry's workplace, 
the roads and bridges crisscrossing this country, safer. For decades, 
truck manufacturers and suppliers have improved safety and efficiency 
technologies that demonstrate real improvements to freight 
transportation and lifesaving goals. As technical solutions have grown, 
and as costs have become more reasonable, policymakers and regulators 
are trying to catch up to the market-driven innovation and 
proliferating technologies. New technology companies and traditional 
equipment suppliers are also developing automated and connected vehicle 
technology specifically for the trucking industry, further accelerating 
the development of commercial motor vehicles equipped with automated 
driving systems (ADS).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ (January 30, 2019). Self-Driving Truck Startup Embark Releases 
Performance Data. Retrieved from https://www.ttnews.com/articles/self-
driving-truck-startup-embark-releases-performance-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the full impact of automated vehicles on workforce training 
and labor regulation is not yet clear--as the effect of automation on 
trucking and logistics operations is still developing along with the 
technology--ATA does not perceive this technology to be completely 
``driverless'' for the trucking industry, but instead a vital driver-
assist tool in monitoring and operating freight deliveries. We expect 
that there will continue to be a role for drivers in trucking for the 
foreseeable future and have confidence in how the role of drivers with 
automation will be modified and adjusted as the technologies continue 
to advance.
    ATA also believes that it is crucial to include the trucking 
industry in any regulatory or legislative framework that directs the 
development and testing of automated vehicle technologies. ATA 
continues to engage with the FMCSA and other agencies within U.S. DOT, 
as well as other stakeholder advisory groups on automated and connected 
vehicles to ensure that the trucking industry's perspective is 
considered as future policies are developed. ATA continues to work with 
State Trucking Associations, state legislators, and transportation 
officials as policies, regulations, and research emanate from cities, 
states, universities, and businesses. As a founding member of the 
Partnership for Transportation Innovation & Opportunity, ATA has also 
engaged with other stakeholders to study and address workforce issues 
related to automated trucks. Additionally, the safety impacts of 
automated or assisted braking and steering systems are being studied 
and will likely show significant improvements in mitigating crashes and 
injuries.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ (May 22, 2019). Development of Baseline Safety Performance 
Measures for Highly Automated Commercial Vehicles. Retrieved from 
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/technology/development-
baseline-safety-performance-measures-highly-automated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the Commerce Committee continues to pursue comprehensive AV 
legislation in conjunction with the House Energy & Commerce Committee, 
we caution that ATA cannot support legislative endeavors that fail to 
take a multi-modal approach to AV legislation. Legislation creating a 
Federal role overseeing the advancement, development and deployment of 
automated vehicle technologies should capture all road users, including 
passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, buses, pedestrians and 
bicyclists, as well as the supporting infrastructure.
b CONNECTIVITY & 5.9 GHz TRANPSORATION SAFETY SPECTRUM:
    The safety benefits from advancing automated truck technology also 
parallels the importance of intelligent transportation systems. Plans 
for deploying dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) devices on 
vehicles to enable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-
infrastructure (V2I) communications--collectively known as V2X--have 
significant future safety benefits to next generation U.S. 
transportation.\22\ Much work has been done by Federal and state 
governments, research institutions, technical standards organizations, 
and technology companies to develop V2X protocols and applications for 
single and combination vehicles.\23\ These V2X technologies are 
dependent on a 5.9 GHz spectrum that remains dedicated to vehicle 
safety applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Chang, J. (2016, July). Summary of NHTSA heavy-vehicle 
vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications research. (Report No. DOT HS 
812 300). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
    \23\ (October 4, 2018). Preparing for the Future of Transportation 
Automated Vehicles 3.0. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/
av/3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, recent actions taken by the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) to reallocate the 5.9 GHz spectrum would turn back the 
clock on highway safety. The proposal released by the FCC in December 
2019 rejects the foresight the Commission demonstrated when originally 
allocating spectrum for improving traveler safety, decreasing traffic 
congestion, and reducing air pollution. Rather, this new proposal seeks 
to increase the already large spectrum allocation for Wi-Fi so that it 
can be used for connecting our TVs, thermostats, baby monitors, 
refrigerators, washing machines, toys, and even toilets, because the 
FCC believes that connected consumer devices are evolving quickly and 
are more widely deployed than the vehicle communications services in 
the 5.9 GHz spectrum. It should be no surprise that developing and 
deploying technology to allow cars and trucks from different 
manufacturers to communicate critical safety information with each 
other as well as with pedestrians, cyclists, traffic signals, work 
zones, and other roadway infrastructure while traveling at highway 
speeds and in traffic jams would evolve more slowly than connected 
household devices. This is not a reasonable justification for 
prioritizing faster Internet speeds for connecting consumer devices and 
streaming infotainment over saving lives and reducing the environmental 
impact of our transportation system.
    It is also disappointing to see how little regard the FCC's 
proposal shows for the significant work and investment by industry and 
all levels of government to develop and deploy technology to improve 
the safety and efficiency of our transportation system under the 
existing FCC rules. The FCC's proposal effectively throws out the one 
technology -DSRC--that has already been deployed in the 5.9 GHz 
spectrum, and severely limits the bandwidth available for the evolution 
of an alternative technology--Cellular Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X). 
Furthermore, the proposal jettisons the work done in good faith to test 
concepts that would retain the 5.9 GHz spectrum for vehicle safety 
communications while allowing for sharing with unlicensed devices, 
``despite the fact that ongoing testing has shown promising results.'' 
\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Ibid. paragraph 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FCC's proposal to reallocate the 5.9 GHz band shows a clear 
bias toward supporting unlicensed operations, while seeking to avoid 
the need to require use of dynamic frequency selection interference 
mitigation technologies for the reallocated spectrum.\25\ Contrast this 
to the proposal's treatment of incumbent DSRC and potential future C-
V2X operations in the 5.9 GHz band, which would be severely curtailed 
and subject to harmful interference from the effectively unfettered Wi-
Fi and other unlicensed use that would be allowed to operate in 
adjacent channels.\26\ The proposal seems predestined to ultimately 
result in a full takeover of the band for unlicensed use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Ibid, paragraph 17.
    \26\ DOT, NHTSA, Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications Research Project 
(V2V-CR), Pre-Final Version, (Dec. 2019), available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/v2v-
cr_dsrc_wifi_baseline_cross-
channel_interference_test_report_pre_final_dec_2019-121219-v1-tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATA has long sought to advance the deployment of wireless 
communication technologies as a means of improving road safety and 
connectivity while reducing crash risk and road fatalities. ATA 
strongly believes that retaining the full 75 MHz spectrum of the 5.9 
GHz band for V2X technology to improve safety and reduce traffic 
congestion and emissions is the right policy outcome, and this position 
has broad support as noted recently by the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I).\27\ ATA concurs with the T&I 
Committee's recommendation that the FCC reconsider its approach in the 
NPRM. ATA further recommends that the FCC coordinate more closely with 
DOT to better understand and account for the implications that changes 
to the existing rules in 5.9 GHz band would have for transportation 
safety before taking further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Letter to Chairman Pai and Commissioners O'Rielly, Carr, 
Rosenworcel, and Starks, (Jan. 22, 2020), available at https://
transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-01-22%20
Full%20TI%20Letter%20to%20FCC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b MISGUIDED SAFETY TECHNOLOGY MANDATES:
    While discussing safety technologies that our industry utilizes, 
both mandated and voluntarily, I also urge this subcommittee to use 
caution and best judgement as you consider technology mandates on the 
trucking industry that, while well intentioned, may lead to unintended 
consequences and negative impacts on both the industry and road safety. 
An example of this can be found in recent legislative attempts to 
mandate an unproven device known as a ``side underride guard'' on the 
trucking industry. Introduced in both the House \28\ and Senate \29\, 
the Stop Underrides Act calls for mandating these devices on the sides 
and front of virtually all commercial vehicles, including the 
retrofitting of already manufactured and in-service vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1511/
all-info.
    \29\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This legislation seeks to address a certain type of truck-involved 
accident through a highly prescriptive industry-wide mandate. 
Regrettably, the bill is not based on science, data or identified 
safety benefit. Moreover, it ignores potential technical issues a 
mandate of this nature raises, as well as the other technologies that 
address these and other crashes, such as automatic emergency braking, 
camera monitoring systems, and adaptive turning assist. And, the bill 
ignores the diversity of our industry. In trucking, we know that one 
size does not fit all, and that investments in certain technologies 
that one company makes may not make sense for another. Standards for 
new and in-service truck equipment should be based on sound economic 
and engineering principles that enhance safety, take into account real-
world operations, and weigh possible unintended consequences.
    The Stop Underrides Act also fails to consider numerous 
complicating factors, such as engineering tradeoffs involving weight, 
strength, and effectiveness of side guards. Advocates for mandating 
side underride guards have reiterated that these devices have been 
tested. To our knowledge, the only testing that has been accomplished 
involves a closed course, at well below highway speeds, during 
perpendicular side impact crashes into a stationary trailer. In 2019, 
ATA staff witnessed firsthand that these crash tests were successful in 
stopping the vehicle from penetrating underneath the side of the 
trailer within a controlled test environment. What we have not 
witnessed is the results of a crash during a realistic highway 
scenario--at highway speeds, with a moving truck and trailer, and with 
other traffic and road environment factors present. For instance, a 
concern remains that a side underride guard may successfully stop a 
passenger car from going underneath the trailer, but the potential for 
that car to bounce off the underride guard and trailer and strike other 
vehicles is a realistic scenario that needs to be addressed via 
research, and not conjecture.
    Furthermore, the bill raises significant operational issues related 
to ground clearance, moveable trailer axles, and the diversity of truck 
and trailer designs. For example, the ridged specified design of side 
underrides would not work well with tank and bulk trailers that are 
cylindrical in size and require underbelly accessibility; flatbed 
trailers, which unloaded, are naturally curved to suppress weight; and 
intermodal trailers that are shipped and locked onto specifically 
designed chassis for hauling. Simply put, these glaring operational 
concerns do not signify real world applicability, nor do they justify 
an industry-wide mandate.
    The Stop Underrides Act also places focus solely on mitigating a 
crash after it has happened, as compared to focusing on efforts--such 
as safety technologies that are available today--on preventing the 
crash from happening in the first place. All parties should be focused 
on crash avoidance that can be achieved by enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle 
(V2V) connectivity. In NHTSA's January 2017 V2V Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for light-duty vehicles, the Agency estimates that four 
safety applications enabled by the proposed rule could avoid or 
mitigate 89 percent of light duty vehicle crashes.\30\ NHTSA is 
currently also conducting research on V2V for heavy vehicles and 
estimates that 70 percent of crashes involving trucks occurred in 
scenarios that could be addressed by V2V systems.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ 82 Fed. Reg. 3863 (January 17, 2017).
    \31\ Chang, J. (2016, July). Summary of NHTSA heavy-vehicle 
vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications research. (Report No. DOT HS 
812 300). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our industry needs to be diligent in directing safety-related 
resources, leveraging industry investments to result in the greatest 
potential benefit to highway safety, which is the only way we can hope 
to achieve the goal of accident and fatality-free highways. In 
testimony provided at the June 2019 ``State of Trucking in America'' 
hearing before the House T&I Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 
advocates for the Stop Underrides Act stated that ``combining all new 
trailer orders with currently registered trailers puts the total number 
of commercial trailers in the United States at well over 12 million.'' 
\32\ Equipping the estimated 12 million trailers with a side underride 
guard, identified in testimony as costing $2,900 would equate to 
approximately $34.8 billion spent on underride guards. This staggering 
figure would result in what is likely the largest unfunded mandate on a 
private sector industry in U.S. history. Furthermore, when combined 
with the expected cost of labor in installing these guards, this 
mandate would exceed the industry's annual net revenue, essentially 
putting trucking out of business and grinding our economy to a halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ (June 12, 2019). Retrieved from: https://
transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Young.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATA strongly recommends that Congress and Federal Regulators work 
collaboratively with the industry to incentivize safety investments, 
allowing motor carrier to make the right investments that provide the 
greatest overall benefit the safety of our roads, bridges and motoring 
public. However, misguided and legislative mandates like the Stop 
Underrides Act detract from our shared goal of improved safety.
2) WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:
b THE DRIVE SAFE ACT IS NEEDED TO EXPAND THE DRIVING WORKFORCE:
    It is no secret that the trucking industry is currently 
experiencing a significant, nationwide shortage of qualified drivers. 
This fact is overwhelmingly supported by legitimate data. The driver 
shortage is real, as the Nation is short 60,800 truck drivers today, 
and over the next decade will need to hire nearly 1.1 million total new 
drivers to account for increasing demand and the industry's aging 
workforce.\33\ Therefore, ATA urges this subcommittee and Congress to 
address this growing problem now by enacting the DRIVE Safe Act (S.569, 
H.R. 1374). This legislation is a common-sense solution that eliminates 
the obsolete regulatory barriers preventing capable, qualified 
Americans from entering the trucking workforce. Moreover, the DRIVE 
Safe Act is not just a workforce replenishment tool--it's a job 
creation and safety enhancement bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Id. The average age of a truck driver is 49, 7 years older 
than that of the typical U.S. worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATA supports lowering the minimum age requirement for interstate 
truck driving from 21 to 18--but only for qualified apprentices that 
satisfy the safety, training, and technology requirements spelled out 
in the DRIVE Safe Act. This bill would lower the minimum age 
requirement for the interstate operation of commercial motor vehicles 
from 21 to 18--but only for properly qualified apprentices who:

  (1)  satisfy a minimum of 400 hours of training and 11 performance 
        benchmarks;

  (2)  complete those hours of training under the supervision of an 
        experienced driver; and

  (3)  train in trucks equipped with technology and enhanced safety 
        features, such as Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), event 
        recorders/cameras, speed-limiters, and automatic transmissions.

    Current law permits an 18-year-old to drive a truck over 850 miles 
from San Diego, California to Crescent City, California. 18-year-olds 
are also legally able to drive a truck over 830 miles from Brownsville, 
Texas to Perryton, Texas. However, 18-year-olds are prohibited from 
driving a truck from Providence, Rhode Island to Rehoboth, 
Massachusetts--a mere 10 miles. As this subcommittee is aware, forty-
nine states and the District of Columbia already allow 18, 19, and 20-
year-old CDL holders to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in 
intrastate commerce. Given that forty-nine states and the District of 
Columbia have already determined that 18 to 20-year-old drivers do not 
inherently pose a significant safety risk to other intrastate 
motorists, it defies logic that these same 18 to 20-year-olds are 
legally unable to drive across state lines.
    The notion that 18 to 20-year-old drivers lack the general 
maturity, skill, and judgment necessary to operate a CMV is erroneously 
dismissive and discriminatory. As the subcommittee is aware, our 
Nation's military currently allows 18, 19, and 20-year-old service 
members to operate heavy duty machinery, equipment, and vehicles--
demonstrating that properly-designed training can enable U.S. sailors 
(whose average age is younger than 20 years old) to operate a $4 
billion aircraft carrier.\34\ Despite myriad examples of 18, 19, and 
20-year-old members of the Armed Services with whom we entrust our 
national security and defense, the nay-sayers argue, that there is 
something intrinsic about 18, 19, and 20-year-olds (often characterized 
derisively as ``teens and novices'') that renders them inherently 
unsafe--and thus, categorically incapable of learning how to operate 
CMVs safely in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ National U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Month, 2018 Talking 
Points, https://aircraftcarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Talking-
Points-2018.pdf, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2015, Congress correctly and soundly rejected this notion when 
it passed the FAST Act, which was signed by President Obama on December 
4, 2015--mandating, among other things, language championed by Chairman 
Fischer, the Under 21 Military Pilot Program.\35\ The very premise of 
the Under 21 Military Pilot is the recognition that certain 18, 19, and 
20-year-olds, with proper training, can learn how to operate CMVs 
safely in interstate commerce. ATA fully supports and agrees with this 
premise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ 83 Fed. Reg. 31633 (July 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, building off of this premise, ATA also agrees with FMCSA 
that the training provided by the military for 18, 19, and 20-year-olds 
serving in the seven Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) codes \36\ 
identified by FMCSA for the purposes of the Under 21 Military Pilot 
Program is effective in vetting, teaching, and preparing qualified 
service members to operate CMVs safely in interstate commerce as 18, 
19, and 20-year-old civilians. Consistent with these views, ATA 
believes that the enhanced training standards of the DRIVE Safe Act can 
be equally effective as the training provided in the seven MOS codes 
referenced above, in vetting, teaching, and preparing qualified 18, 19, 
and 20-year-old non-military drivers to operate CMVs safely in 
interstate commerce. Given the many similarities between the training 
regimen of those seven MOS codes and the training regimen of the DRIVE 
Safe Act,\37\ Congress should have a similar level of ex ante 
confidence in the safety prospects of the latter as the level of ex 
ante confidence Congress expressed in mandating the former.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ 88M Motor Transport Operator (Army); 92F Fueler (Army); 2T1 
Vehicle Operations (Air Force); 2Fo Fueler (Air Force); 3E2 Pavement 
and Construction Equipment (Air Force); E.O. Equipment Operator (Navy); 
and 3531 Motor Vehicle Operator (Marine Corps).
    \37\ E.g. Training Hours (160 hours minimum for the 7 MOS versus 
400 hours minimum for DRIVE Safe); both training regiments require 
Performance Based Training, and Supervised Training, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b TRAINING--NOT AGE--IS PARAMOUNT:
    For the past twenty years,\38\ opponents of 18-20 year old drivers 
have recycled severely flawed, limited, and outdated data--largely 
relying upon on a single study released 28 years ago in 1991 by K.L. 
Campbell (``the Campbell Study'')\39\ to justify the proposition that 
``CMV drivers under the age of 21 are over-involved in fatal crashes by 
a factor of six when compared to older drivers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ OOIDA, May 21, 2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-1608, https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-1608, at 8; Advocates of 
Highway and Auto Safety, May 21, 2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-1466, 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-1466, at 4; Todd 
Spencer, OOIDA, August 9, 2019, Docket ID FMCSA-2018-0346-1020, https:/
/www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0346-1020; Under Pressure: 
The State of Trucking in America; Hearing before the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and 
Transit, House, 116th Cong. (June 12, 2019) (Testimony of Cathy Chase, 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety), https://
transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Chase.pdf.
    \39\ Kenneth L. Campbell, Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By 
Driver Age for Large Trucks, University of Michigan Transportation 
Research Institute (September 1990), https://deepblue
.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/29197/
0000251.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the subcommittee may be interested to know that Campbell 
himself warned that his study was a mere estimate of accident rates 
that were calculated using an admittedly incomplete, non-matching batch 
of ``data'' from 1980-84 and from 1986 that was of insufficient sample 
size and obtained in part via telephone survey estimates.\40\ He 
explicitly cautioned: When considering possible conclusions based on 
the results of these analyses, the reader must remember the mismatch in 
time periods between the involvements and the travel.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Campbell, at 290. Specifically, Campbell was very careful to 
caution the following: (1) ``Since the travel survey was mostly 
conducted in 1986, the time period for the exposure does not match the 
time period of the accidents . . ..''; (2) ``Obviously, it would have 
been more desirable to have travel data for the same period of time as 
the involvements, but the availability of funding and other problems 
preclude a better match at this time.''; and (3) ``It will be another 
year before the 1986 TIFA file is complete, and several years of 
accident data are needed to produce sufficient sample sizes.''.
    \41\ Id. at 2 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The only other CMV-specific ``data'' that opponents of 18, 19, and 
20-year-old drivers consistently cite is derived from a 1996 study by 
Daniel Blower (``the Blower Study''),\42\ which similarly relies on 
flawed, limited, and outdated data. Specifically, the Blower Study:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Daniel Blower, The Accident Experience of Younger Truck 
Drivers, Great Lakes Center for Truck and Transit Research (May 1996), 
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/1147.

   was limited to data from Michigan, supplemented by data from 
        North Carolina ``because of certain [unspecified] problems with 
        the Michigan data;'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ ibid

   conflated two age group which FMCSA separates out in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under 21 Military Pilot as the control and test groups; and

   purposely compared--i.e. cherry-picked--this conflated group 
        of younger drivers against the group of drivers in the flattest 
        part of the accident curve.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ First, Blower simultaneously claims that ``accident 
involvement rates were calculated by the population of CDL-holders, 
using drivers with a CDL in Michigan and accidents in Michigan''1 while 
also stating that ``because of certain problems with the Michigan data 
. . . and to boost confidence in the findings, accident data from North 
Carolina were used also.'' The reader is left to wonder what exactly 
was problematic with the Michigan data; why did the findings of the 
study need a boost in confidence to begin with; and why North 
Carolina's data rather than data from other state(s) is sufficient to 
address those deficiencies, among other questions.
    Also, Blower claims that ``there are not enough 19-to-20 year old 
CDL-holders, so 21-year olds are added to establish this population of 
young drivers. . . . Those 22 to 24 . . . probably share many 
characteristics with the younger drivers. This group was included in 
the project in order to increase sample sizes where necessary.'' This 
questionably constituted group of ``younger drivers'' was compared 
against the age group of drivers which the author knew had the lowest 
accident rates--specifically ``truck drivers 30-49 years old [who] are 
clearly in the flat part of the accident rate curve.'' Evidently, this 
cherry-picked comparison was intentional: ``the purpose of the project 
is essentially to compare drivers on the steep part of the curve with 
drivers in the flat area. . . . Accordingly, only drivers 18 to 24 and 
30 to 49 are included in the study.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast, in collecting and presenting the state data for the 
2019 FMCSA notice and request for comments entitled, ``Commercial 
Driver's Licenses; Pilot Program To Allow Drivers Under 21 To Operate 
Commercial Motor Vehicles in Interstate Commerce,'' \45\ ATA adopted 
FMCSA's approach of comparing the safety performance of 18-20 year olds 
against that of 21-24 year olds. Most of these 18 to 20-year-old 
drivers for whom comparative data is available appear to already 
achieve equivalent--if not superior--levels of safety than that of 
their older counterparts on critical safety measures such as crash 
rates,\46\ particularly when compared to drivers aged 21, 22, 23, and 
24, with whom they are closest in age.\47\ This pattern is consistent 
with broader trends in Federal crash data encompassing passenger 
vehicles as well as CMVs. Specifically, according to NHTSA's Traffic 
Safety Facts Annual Report, in each of the past six years for which 
NHTSA has data--i.e., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017--male 
drivers in the 16-20 age range had a lower involvement rate in fatal 
crashes than male drivers in the 21-24 age range.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ 84 Fed. Reg. 21895 (May 15, 2019).
    \46\ In response to FMCSA's May 15th, 2019, notice published at 84 
Fed. Reg. 21895, ATA requested from its federation of state trucking 
associations data from their respective State Driver Licensing Agencies 
four points of data: (1) the number of 18, 19, and 20 year old CDL 
holders in the state; (2) the number of crashes associated with 18, 19, 
and 20 year old CDL holders in the state, over the past three years, 
broken down by Fatal Crashes, Injury Crashes, and Property Damage Only 
(PDO) Crashes; (3) the number of 21, 22, 23, and 24-year-old CDL 
holders in the state; and (4) the number of crashes associated with 21, 
22, 23 and 24 year old CDL holders in the state, over the past three 
years, broken down by Fatal, Injury, and PDO Crashes. Unless otherwise 
noted, ``crash rates'' were calculated by ATA, by dividing the number 
of crashes associated with CDL holders of a particular age group in a 
state, by the total number of CDL holders of that age group in the 
state. Significantly, the data received from the states do not appear 
to distinguish whether the CDL holder was at-fault in the crash in 
question. In addition, the data received from the states may include 
crashes that fall outside the ambit of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations' (FMCSRs) definition of ``accident.'' Also, unless 
otherwise noted, the data may not distinguish between crashes that 
occurred in a commercial or non-commercial vehicle. What is more, the 
crash rates are not based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). However, 
these limitations held true across the board for data ATA received for 
both 18-20 year old CDL holders as well as 21-24 year old CDL holders--
thus, allowing for a comparison of the safety performance of those two 
cohorts of drivers, under the uniform metric of ``crash rates'' as that 
term is defined in this document.
    \47\ These two age groups are the ones selected by the Agency for 
comparison of safety performance in the Under 21 Military Pilot 
Program, and ATA would recommend that FMCSA similarly design the pilot 
program that is the subject of this Notice by comparing the safety 
performance of 18-20 year old interstate drivers (Covered Drivers) with 
that of 21-24 year old interstate drivers (Control Group).
    \48\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety 
Facts Annual Report, Table 62, Driver Involvement Rates per 100,000 
Licensed Drivers by Age, Sex, and Crash Severity, https://
cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm#; see also Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, 
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. (showing that ninety-four percent 
of truck drivers are male).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Significantly, these 18-to-20-year-old drivers operating CMVs in 
intrastate commerce are already achieving this baseline level of safety 
without the benefit of having trained under the enhanced training and 
technology standards of the DRIVE Safe Act. Thus, if Congress were to 
enact the DRIVE Safe Act, lawmakers should have every expectation to 
observe similar, if not better, safety performance by 18, 19, and 20-
year-old interstate drivers relative to their older counterparts--the 
latter of whom are not required to have their CMVs equipped with the 
DRIVE Safe Act's vehicle safety technologies, which have the potential 
to prevent or significantly reduce the number and severity of crashes.
b THE DRIVE SAFE ACT IS NOT JUST PRO-SAFETY--ITS ALSO PRO-JOBS:
    With an average salary of $45,570, and excellent benefits, such as 
paid leave, health insurance, and 401(k)s, trucking provides a stable, 
good-paying career to Americans.\49\ However, these types of fulfilling 
careers are out of reach for many otherwise-qualified 18 to 20-year-
olds because, unlike other blue-collar professions, there are many 
barriers to entry for new truck drivers beyond the minimum age 
requirement, such as CDL testing standards, strict drug and alcohol 
testing regimes, and safe and clean driving records. If motor carriers 
could reach potential truck driver candidates straight out of high 
school, the trucking industry would be in a better position to help 
candidates develop the skills, habits, and attitudes necessary for a 
long and satisfying career in the trucking industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/
oes533032.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Significantly, even though the minimum age for interstate driving 
is 21, the reality is that the average age of entry-level drivers 
enrolled at private truck driver training schools is actually 35.\50\ 
This means that many drivers entering our industry may be on the back 
end of their second, third, or fourth careers, pursuing a job in 
trucking as an opportunity of last resort. As such, the trucking 
industry is unable to tap into the ambitions of the next generation's 
workforce and replenish its aging workforce with younger workers. 
Unfortunately, blue-collar professions are still stigmatized in our 
society and culture, which place a disproportionate emphasis on four-
year-degree colleges at the expense of vocational schools or the 
skilled trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Commercial Vehicle Training Association, 2018 Legislative 
Agenda, https://cvta.org/wp-content/uploads/CVTA-Legislative-Agenda-
2018.pdf, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike other blue-collar professions, however, the trucking 
industry faces an additional barrier to entry in the form of FMCSA's 
regulations that require an individual to be at least 21 years old in 
order to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. This means that other 
blue collar industries essentially get at least a three year head start 
in advance of the trucking industry in the ability to recruit, hire, 
and train--straight out of school--the already-limited subset of 
students who, for a variety of reasons, decide to forego a four-year-
degree and significant student loan debt. Meanwhile, 4.6 million 
Opportunity Youth \51\ in this country are neither employed nor in 
school, even as the Nation is short 60,800 truck drivers. As mentioned 
earlier, over the next decade, the industry will need to hire nearly 
1.1 million total new drivers, considering retirement and the 
industry's aging workforce.\52\ An update to the minimum age 
requirement coupled with the right safety parameters is well overdue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions, Who Are 
Opportunity Youth? https://aspencommunitysolutions.org/who-are-
opportunity-youth/.
    \52\ Id. The average age of a truck driver is 49, 7 years older 
than that of the typical U.S. worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of the proven safety performance of 18-20 year old drivers 
who are already allowed to operate trucks in 49 U.S. states,\53\ and 
given the threats that the driver shortage poses to the cost of moving 
freight and to supply chain efficiencies, ATA urges Congress to address 
this problem now, by including the DRIVE Safe Act (S.569, H.R. 1374) in 
any forthcoming surface transportation reauthorization package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Id. at 19-30 (11 out of 12 states for which data could be 
obtained within the comment period, 18-20 year old CDL holders had 
lower or equivalent crash rates than their 21-24 year old counterparts 
in the past 3 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b OTHER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES CONGRESS SHOULD CONSIDER:
    ATA also supports other legislative initiatives designed to bring 
greater attention to the growing driver shortage, and attract a new 
workforce into the industry. These include efforts to raise greater 
awareness of job opportunities in the trucking industry, as well as 
legislation that will bring an important focus to the advancement of 
female representation and participation in the industry. Two such bills 
are S.2858, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act and H.R. 
5118, the Promoting Service in Transportation Act.
    S.2858, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act, introduced 
by two leaders on the Commerce Committee, Senators Moran and Baldwin, 
rightly notes that although women currently make up 47 percent of the 
U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7 percent of truck drivers, and 
only a quarter of all transportation and warehousing jobs in trucking. 
Of the 3.5 million truck drivers in 2018, only 234,234 of them were 
women. While the trucking industry has taken great strides over the 
last decade in increasing the female workforce, growing the number of 
women truck drivers by 68 percent since 2010, women remain 
underrepresented in the industry.
    Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking Advisory Board 
under the leadership of the FMCSA, the legislation will bring greater 
attention to the recruitment, training, mentorship, and outreach to 
women in the trucking industry. This in turn will lead to increased 
female representation in trucking and greater industry diversity, while 
providing another tool to help the trucking industry confront and stem 
its growing driver shortage.
    H.R. 5118, the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, introduced 
by Rep. Rick Larsen, is a further crucial step that will enhance the 
use of broadcast, digital and print media public service announcement 
campaigns to promote job opportunities, and also encourage improved 
diversity in the transportation workforce. Empowering individuals to 
seek rewarding careers enjoys broad bipartisan support, and this bill 
would help promote job opportunities for a wide swath of diverse 
individuals in the trucking industry.
    ATA supports both of these important legislative efforts, and 
encourages their inclusion in any forthcoming safety title to accompany 
a surface transportation reauthorization bill.
3) INFRASTRUCTURE:
b THE COST OF INACTION:
    A well-maintained, reliable and efficient network of highways is 
crucial to the delivery of the Nation's freight and vital to our 
country's economic and social well-being. However, the road system is 
rapidly deteriorating, and costs the average motorist nearly $1,600 a 
year in higher maintenance and congestion expenses.\54\ Highway 
congestion also adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight 
transportation each year.\55\ In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic for 
nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers 
sitting idle for a year.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies to 
make our Roads Smoother, The Road Information Program, Oct. 2018; 2015 
Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas Transportation Institute, Aug. 2015.
    \55\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update. 
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
    \56\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the primary source of Federal revenue 
for highway projects, safety programs and transit investments, is 
projected to run short of the funds necessary to maintain current 
spending levels by FY2021.\57\ While an average of approximately $43 
billion per year is expected to be collected from highway users over 
the next decade, nearly $62 billion will be required annually to 
prevent significant reductions in Federal aid for critical projects and 
programs.\58\ It should be noted that a $62 billion annual average 
Federal investment still falls well short of the resources necessary to 
provide the Federal share of the expenditure needed to address the 
Nation's surface transportation safety, maintenance and capacity 
needs.\59\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the 
U.S. spends less than half of what is necessary to address these needs. 
As the investment gap continues to grow, so too will the number of 
deficient bridges, miles of roads in poor condition, number of highway 
bottlenecks and, most critically, the number of crashes and fatalities 
attributable to inadequate roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ The Budget and Economic Outlook 2020-2030, January 2020 
Congressional Budget Office.
    \58\ Ibid.
    \59\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 
Conditions & Performance. USDOT, Dec. 2016; see also 2017 
Infrastructure Report Card. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These are impacts that serve as a brake on economic growth and job 
creation nationwide. Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth, a 
first-world economy cannot survive a third-world infrastructure system. 
As such, the Federal government has a Constitutional responsibility to 
ensure that the resources are available to address this self-imposed 
and completely solvable situation. The Commerce Clause does not 
represent an antiquated 18th century ideal; it is what binds us as a 
nation. E Pluribus Unum--out of many, one.
b THE BUILD AMERICA FUND:
    ATA's proposed solution to the highway funding crisis is the Build 
America Fund (BAF). The BAF would be supported with a new 20 cent per 
gallon fee built into the price of transportation fuels collected at 
the terminal rack, to be phased in over four years. The fee will be 
indexed to both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a 
five percent annual cap. We estimate that the fee will generate nearly 
$340 billion over the first 10 years. It will cost the average 
passenger vehicle driver just over $100 per year once fully phased 
in.\60\ We also support a new fee on hybrid and electric vehicles, 
which underpay for their use of the highway system or do not contribute 
at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Table 
VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 522 gallons of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the BAF proposal, the first tranche of revenue generated by 
the new fee would be transferred to the HTF. Using a FY 2020 baseline, 
existing HTF programs would be funded at authorized levels sufficient 
to prevent a reduction in distributed funds, plus an annual increase to 
account for inflation.
    Second, a new National Priorities Program (NPP) would be funded 
with an annual allocation of $5 billion, plus an annual increase 
equivalent to the percentage increase in BAF revenue. Each year, the 
U.S. Department of Transportation would determine the location of the 
costliest highway bottlenecks in the Nation and publish the list. 
Criteria could include the number of vehicles; amount of freight; 
congestion levels; reliability; safety; or, air quality impacts. States 
with identified bottlenecks could apply to USDOT for project funding 
grants on a competitive basis. Locations could appear on the list over 
multiple years until they are addressed.
    The funds remaining following the transfer to the HTF and the NPP 
would be placed into the Local Priorities Program (LPP). Funds would be 
apportioned to the states according to the same formula established by 
the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, including sub-
allocation to local agencies. Project eligibility would be the same as 
the eligibility for the National Highway Freight Program or National 
Highway Performance Program, for highway projects only.
    This approach would give state and local transportation agencies 
the long-term certainty and revenue stability they need to not only 
maintain, but also begin to improve their surface transportation 
systems. They should not be forced to resort to costly, inefficient 
practices--such as deferred maintenance--necessitated by the 
unpredictable Federal revenue streams that have become all too common 
since 2008. Furthermore, while transportation investment has long-term 
benefits that extend beyond the initial construction phase, it is 
estimated that our proposal would add nearly half a million annual jobs 
related to construction nationwide.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ A Framework for Infrastructure Funding. American 
Transportation Research Institute, Nov. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fuel tax is the most immediate, cost-efficient and conservative 
mechanism currently available for funding surface transportation 
projects and programs. Collection costs are less than one percent of 
revenue.\62\ Our proposal will not add to the Federal debt or force 
states to resort to detrimental financing options that could jeopardize 
their bond ratings. Unlike other approaches that simply pass the buck 
to state and local governments by giving them additional ``tools'' to 
debt-finance their infrastructure funding shortfalls for the few 
projects that qualify, the BAF will generate real money that can be 
utilized for any federal-aid project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While some have suggested that a fuel tax is regressive, the 
economic harm of failing to enact our proposal will be far more 
damaging to motorists. The $100 per year the average car driver is 
expected to pay under this proposal pales in comparison with the $1,600 
they are now forced to pay annually due to additional vehicle 
maintenance, lost time, and wasted fuel that has resulted from 
underinvestment in our infrastructure. Borrowing billions of dollars 
each year from China to debt finance the HTF funding gap--a cost 
imposed on current and future generations of Americans who will be 
forced to pay the interest--is far more regressive than the modest fee 
needed to avoid further blowing up our already massive national debt.
    There is also a perception that the fuel tax is no longer a viable 
revenue source due to the availability of electric vehicles and 
improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. This notion is belied by the 
facts. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest estimates, 
revenue from fuel taxes will drop less than 8 percent over the next 
decade, or about $3 billion.\63\ A modest increase in the fuel tax, or 
a new fee on alternative fuel vehicles, can easily recover these lost 
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook: 
2019-2029, January 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, ATA supports repeal of the Federal excise tax (FET) on 
trucking equipment, provided the revenue it generates for the HTF is 
replaced. This antiquated 12 percent sales tax, which was adopted in 
1917 to defray the costs of World War I, is a barrier to investment in 
the cleanest, safest trucks available on the market. In fact, when the 
FET was first adopted, it was applied to all vehicles, and now is 
imposed only on heavy trucks. Income from the FET has varied widely, 
mostly in response to economic conditions. Over the past decade revenue 
has ranged between $1.5 billion during the recession year of 2008 and 
$4.6 billion in 2015. This variability contributes to mismatches 
between federal-aid money authorized and revenue available for 
appropriation. In fact, the first bail-out of the HTF, in 2008, was 
necessitated largely by an unanticipated drop in FET revenue.
b TRUCK-ONLY FEES:
    We strongly caution against discriminatory funding schemes that 
place the burden of supporting our infrastructure solely on the back of 
the trucking industry. Forcing the industry to cover the entire gap 
between available revenue and infrastructure funding needs will 
jeopardize economic stability, cripple our Nation's supply chain, and 
threaten to decimate recent economic gains. Moreover, it will 
irreparably fracture the broad stakeholder support that has facilitated 
the advancement of past highway bills. Therefore, any discriminatory 
funding schemes, like a truck-only vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax, 
must be dismissed as a misguided and prejudiced funding gimmick.
    Mandating that the trucking industry bear the brunt of our Nation's 
infrastructure investment via a truck-only VMT tax is unfair, 
imbalanced, and runs counter to public interest. In terms of 
feasibility, there are ample reasons why a truck-only VMT is an ill-
conceived and dangerous solution, especially when compared to other 
available funding streams. First, experts agree that proper 
implementation of a VMT tax will require at least a decade to generate 
revenue because the relevant technology has yet to be fully developed, 
large-scale field testing has not been conducted, data privacy and 
security issues have not been addressed, and VMT enforcement mechanisms 
have not been implemented to combat the expected evasion. With the 
Highway Trust Fund edging closer to insolvency each day, we cannot 
afford to wait more than a decade to provide a new funding stream 
intended to pay for a five year bill.
    Second, a VMT fee would require individual accounts for each taxed 
vehicle. Even if applied only to trucking, this would affect as many as 
36 million vehicles, which would impose an overwhelming administrative 
cost and the burden of creating and monitoring 36 million individual 
accounts.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ American Trucking Trends 2019. American Trucking Associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, the concept of using ELDs to track and report truck miles 
traveled is untenable, as Federal law prohibits government agencies 
from using ELDs for any purpose other than Hours of Service 
compliance.\65\ Further complicating this concept is the fact that only 
28 percent of commercial motor vehicles are legally required to be 
equipped with ELDs.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Issues and Options for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled by 
Commercial Trucks. Congressional Budget Office, Oct. 2019.
    \66\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, a truck-only VMT tax would not only cause irreparable harm 
to the trucking industry, but would prompt uncertainty in the supply 
chain and increase cost of moving freight, making domestic 
manufacturers and farmers less competitive and goods more expensive. 
The impact would reverberate throughout our cities, towns, and 
communities where trucks deliver vital necessities, including food and 
drinking water, clothes to purchase, parts to build automobiles, and 
fuel to power them.
bTOLLS:
    ATA opposes the expansion of Interstate highway tolling authority 
and highway ``asset recycling.'' Interstate tolls are a highly 
inefficient method of funding highways, and extremely costly for 
motorists. One study found that converting all Interstate highways into 
toll roads would cost more than $55 billion.\67\ Tolling also forces 
traffic onto secondary roads, which are weaker and less safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway 
System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research 
Board, National Academy of Sciences, p. 6-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forcing states to resort to tolls by starving them of Federal funds 
is far more regressive than the $2.00 a week motorists would pay under 
the Build America Fund proposal. One needs only look to I-66 in 
Northern Virginia, where tolls average more than $12.00 per roundtrip 
and can sometimes exceed $46.00, to understand the potential impacts on 
lower-or middle-income Americans.\68\ To put this into perspective, 
even if motorists only paid the average toll, the cost of a 10-mile 
trip over an eight day period on I-66 is equivalent to their cost for 
an entire year under ATA's BAF proposal for all roads and bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ http://www.66expresslanes.org/documents/
66_express_lanes_january_2018_performance_ereport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, tolls distort the business model for companies that 
rely on Interstate highway traffic for a significant share of their 
revenue. Motels, restaurants, truck stops and other roadside 
establishments would be devastated by the imposition of tolls. Often 
they are the largest employers in rural areas and small towns, and if 
they are forced to cut back or close down, this could cause a ripple 
effect through surrounding communities. Nor are the effects likely to 
be confined to the state that imposes the tolls. Indiana, for example, 
seriously considered statewide Interstate tolls using a Federal 
exemption that allows tolling of replacement or reconstructed bridges. 
These tolls would have not only severely hurt businesses in Indiana, 
but also in neighboring states that rely on Indiana highways for 
freight services.
    The exceptions to the Federal ban on Interstate tolls have evolved 
over the decades into a confusing, incoherent mess that serve neither 
state transportation agencies, nor the public, very well. It is time to 
establish a rational system that protects the public from the negative 
impacts of tolls.
b THE TRUCK DRIVER PARKING SHORTAGE:
    Research and feedback from carriers and drivers suggest there is a 
significant shortage of available parking for truck drivers in certain 
parts of the country. Given the projected growth in demand for trucking 
services, this problem will likely worsen. There are significant safety 
benefits from investing in truck parking to ensure that trucks are not 
parking in unsafe areas due to lack of space.
    Funding for truck parking is available to states under the current 
federal-aid highway program, but truck parking has not been a priority 
given a shortage of funds for essential highway projects. Therefore, 
ATA supports the creation of a new discretionary grant program with 
dedicated funding from the federal-aid highway program for truck 
parking capital projects
b FREIGHT PROGRAMS:
    With the creation of two new freight funding programs, the FAST Act 
recognized the critical role that the Federal government plays in 
facilitating the efficient movement of freight in interstate commerce, 
a role memorialized by the U.S. Constitution. Both the Nationally 
Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program (AKA INFRA) and the 
National Highway Freight Program provided dedicated funds for projects 
that improved traffic flow and safety on transportation facilities with 
significant freight volumes.
    These programs should be continued, with higher funding levels. 
Furthermore, ATA opposes increasing the 10 percent cap on funding for 
non-highway projects, or the expansion of eligibility for non-highway 
projects. Given that trucks carry 71 percent of the Nation's freight 
and that, unlike other modes, trucking companies cannot directly fund 
their infrastructure, the Federal government has a special 
responsibility to ensure that highways critical to serving the 
country's interstate commerce needs are safe, well-maintained and 
efficient.
bGRANTS FOR THE ADOPTION AND UPGRADE OF AUTOMATED SIZE AND WEIGHT 
        PERMITTING SYSTEMS:
    Some commercial motor vehicles and some military vehicles exceed 
standard size and weight limitations for operating on public highways 
and must apply for and receive oversize/overweight (OS/OW) permits from 
the states in which they need to operate. These types of vehicles are 
uniquely and vitally important to expeditious military and emergency 
relief operations. However, timely issuance of OS/OW permits across 
multiple states is inconsistent, even during normal business hours. 
Reliability of timely permit issuance is particularly concerning during 
nights, weekends and holidays when states' offices issuing the permits 
are generally not open. This results in trucks having to park on the 
state border, greatly increased cost of service, and adds hundreds of 
unnecessary miles and critical hours getting to destination with 
urgently needed supplies.
    Some states have successfully addressed this issue by automating 
their permit-issuing system for OS/OW loads traversing highways that 
are appropriate for those vehicles. The Federal Highway Administration 
issued a report, Best Practices in Permitting Oversized and Overweight 
Vehicles, demonstrating that states that automate their OS/OW 
permitting systems improved highway safety, protected infrastructure, 
reduced overhead, and increased state revenues. However, mostly due to 
budget constraints, several states do not have these systems, or their 
systems are inadequate.
    ATA recommends providing Federal grants of up to $2 million per 
state for the purpose of creating or upgrading automated permitting 
systems. While these expenses are eligible under FMCSA's High Priority 
Innovative Technology Deployment (ITD) Program, this program is over 
subscribed. ATA proposes to set aside funds from the ITD program for 
automated permitting systems, provided it receives sufficient 
additional funds to ensure that funding for other important programs is 
not affected.
CONCLUSION:
    Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you again for providing ATA with the opportunity to 
testify before you today. As you have likely ascertained in my 
testimony, the trucking industry is under increasing pressure, and in 
many ways at an operational crossroads. Too often, our Federal 
government is mired in squabbling about yesterday's problems rather 
than leading the way to address tomorrow's. Your leadership toward the 
challenges of today and the future are vital to our continued economic 
strength and to the families and businesses that benefit from it.
    The actions of this subcommittee, Congress and the Administration 
over the next several months could help steer our great industry 
towards tremendous advancements in safety, efficiency and productivity 
by providing the resources and regulatory framework that will make our 
fleets safer and more connected. Congressional leadership would also 
allow our industry to meet the growing driver shortage head-on, and 
recruit a workforce for the next generation of trucking. Finally, your 
actions could prevent the continued decay of our infrastructure and 
sense of national decline, and help us return to the national sense of 
a ``shining city on a hill,'' where the roads to that city are not 
scarred by potholes and collapsing bridges.
    Alternatively, inaction or misguided action will grind the wheels 
of the trucking industry and our national economy to a screeching halt. 
Our roads would become less safe. And we would be ceding our global 
leadership in freight movement to countries that are making the 
necessary investments in infrastructure. Of equal or greater concern, 
we would be failing to improve the well-being and quality of life of 
our citizens and society.
    Our unwavering hope is that Congress and the Administration will 
now roll up their sleeves, make the tough decisions, and work together 
to support infrastructure, the economy, and the industry that moves it. 
ATA and the trucking industry stand ready to work with you on these 
major issues. Under your leadership and guidance, we believe that the 
important and necessary steps can and will be taken to facilitate and 
support the continued movement of our economy.

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Spear. Next, I would like 
to welcome Mr. Lewie Pugh, who is the Executive Vice President 
of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, a role 
he was elected to in 2018. He began his career in trucking in 
1992 as a motor transport operator in the United States Army 
Reserve. Welcome, sir.

   STATEMENT OF LEWIE PUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER-
            OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Pugh. Thank you. Good morning. I am Lewie Pugh, the 
Executive Vice President of the Owner-Operator Independent 
Drivers Association. Prior to working at OOIDA, I was a small 
business operator and trucker for nearly 23 years with roughly 
two-and-a-half million safe miles of driving. Prior to that, I 
was a truck driver in the United States Army. I still proudly 
hold my CDL. In short, my entire career has been in trucking.
    From the perspective of small business motor carriers and 
professional drivers, the state of the trucking industry is 
dysfunctional. This is because too many people who know 
virtually nothing about trucking have an oversized role in 
shaping trucking policies. Drivers feel the negative effects of 
this firsthand, myself included.
    The hours of service rules are broken. There are hundreds 
of regulations that have nothing to do with highway safety. The 
lack of available truck parking is a national crisis. 
Enforcement is often motivated by profit, and drivers work 
extremely long hours for notoriously low pay. If you ask most 
drivers, what Congress has done recently to help their 
profession the answer would be simple, nothing.
    In fact, most of our members would tell you that Congress 
enacts laws that drive truckers away from the industry and 
decreases highway safety. This isn't a partisan attack against 
Republicans or Democrats, but yet an honest reflection on how 
truckers view Congress. Don't get me wrong, while Washington 
has contributed its fair share of the dysfunction in trucking, 
there is plenty to go around--plenty of blame.
    Too many drivers are forced to haul cheap freight. Too many 
motor carriers mistreat drivers and under pay them. Too many 
shippers and receivers detain drivers for extended periods of 
time. Too many enforcement agencies prioritize profits over 
safety. Too many safety advocates seek mandates that do not 
work. Too many motors don't even attempt to operate safely 
around big trucks.
    I make these claims on first-hand experience. I have seen 
it and I have lived it. We are all responsible for creating 
this mess so we are all responsible for fixing it as well. As 
Congress considers the next highway bill, there are several 
ways to make a positive difference. Repeal the failed DOT 
mandate. Repeal the overtime exemption for drivers in the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. Provide dedicated funding for new truck 
parking capacity. Create a fair process for drivers to appeal 
inspections written in error. And fix the Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure in an equitable way.
    You should abandon meaningless, unproven, unsafe policies. 
Do not mandate speed limiters. Do not mandate front and side 
underride guards. Do not mandate higher insurance minimum. Do 
not enact VMTs for trucks only, and do not expand tolling 
authority. And do not pass the Drive Say Act. I want to take a 
moment to focus on the DRIVE-Safe Act. Contrary to what other 
associations repeat constantly, there is no driver shortage. 
The notion of a driver shortage isn't supported by facts, data, 
or reputable research. In other words, it is a myth. We oppose 
this bill because it is a solution in search of a problem and 
we urge Congress to reject it.
    Washington has allowed truck policy to be overly influenced 
by executives looking to maximize profits, activists who like 
to regulate truckers into oblivion, State and local governments 
who view truckers as rolling piggy banks, and self-proclaimed 
experts who don't even know what the inside of the cab of a 
truck looks like. This has to change. Most truckers don't wear 
suits on a daily basis. They don't have advanced degrees in 
engineering and economics, but they know trucking. Truckers 
aren't the problem, they are the solution and Congress should 
treat them accordingly.
    Thankfully, some lawmakers such as Chairwoman Fisher and 
Congressman Brian Babin who see much of the dysfunction in our 
industry and understand that just maybe it is time to start 
listening to what real truckers have to say. We appreciate 
being a part of this hearing. We have some sensible ideas on 
how to fix the industry and improve highway safety, and I look 
forward to sharing them with you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pugh follows:]

   Testimony of Lewie Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator 
                    Independent Drivers Association
    Chairwoman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Lewie Pugh and I am the Executive Vice 
President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association 
(OOIDA). Prior to working at OOIDA, I was a small-business trucker for 
nearly 23 years with 2.5 million miles of safe driving. Before 
operating my own trucking business, I drove a truck during my service 
in the United States Army. I still proudly hold a Commercial Driver's 
License (CDL). In short, I've been a trucker my entire career.
About OOIDA
    OOIDA has represented the interests of owner-operators and 
professional drivers for over 45 years. We were created by truckers to 
ensure their voices were being heard in Washington and beyond. Decades 
later, we continue to be led by men and women who make their living 
behind the wheel. Today, we have over 160,000 members across the United 
States and Canada. No other organization participating in today's 
hearing knows truckers like we do.
    Small trucking businesses like those we represent account for 96 
percent of registered motor carriers in the U.S. We are undoubtedly the 
safest and most diverse operators on our Nation's roads. Our activities 
impact all sectors of the American economy on a daily basis. We move 
everything and anything--from agricultural products and household goods 
to military equipment and energy resources.
Introduction
    From our perspective as small-business motor carriers and 
professional drivers, we can see that the trucking industry is 
dysfunctional.
    In large part, this is because too many people who know very little 
about trucking have an oversized role in shaping trucking policy. 
Drivers feel the negative effects of this firsthand, especially OOIDA 
members.
    This dysfunction is apparent in seemingly every aspect of our 
industry. For example, the hours-of-service (HOS) rules are broken. 
They fail to reflect the realities of trucking and have done nothing to 
improve highway safety since their implementation. Our members comply 
with hundreds of other ineffectual regulations that have no impact on 
highway safety. Despite the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 
noting that the lack of truck parking had become a serious highway 
safety concern back in 2015, nothing has been done to address the 
growing crisis our members face every day. Law enforcement agencies 
have become too comfortable prioritizing revenue over safety. And 
drivers continue to work extremely long hours with notoriously low pay.
    If you ask most drivers what Congress has done recently to improve 
their profession, I regret to inform you the answer is ``nothing''. In 
fact, most of our members would tell you that Congress generally enacts 
laws that not only drive people away from the industry, but decrease 
highway safety. This isn't a partisan attack against Republicans or 
Democrats, and we're by no means suggesting we don't fully appreciate 
the support we've received from individual Members of Congress on 
certain policies. In fact, we sincerely appreciate the efforts of 
elected officials like Chairman Wicker, who has spent much of his 
tenure in Washington fighting against bigger and heavier trucks. 
Instead, this is an honest reflection of how truckers view the 
legislative branch as a whole.
    Don't get me wrong--while Washington has contributed its fair share 
to the dysfunction in trucking, there is plenty of blame to go around.
    Too many drivers are forced to haul cheap freight; too many motor 
carriers mistreat and underpay drivers; too many shippers and receivers 
detain drivers for excessive periods of time; too many safety advocates 
seek mandates that don't work; and too many motorists don't even 
attempt to operate safely around big trucks.
    I make these claims based on firsthand experience. I've seen it. 
I've lived it.
    OOIDA acknowledges all stakeholders are responsible for creating 
this mess, and believes we're all responsible for fixing it as well.
    As Congress considers the next highway bill, there are several ways 
you can make a positive difference for American truckers:

   Repeal the failed electronic logging device mandate;

   Repeal the overtime exemption for drivers in the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act;

   Provide dedicated funding for new truck parking capacity;

   Create a fair process for drivers to appeal inspection 
        violations written in error; and

   Fix the Nation's crumbling infrastructure in an equitable 
        way.

    You should also abandon unsafe, unproven, and unfair proposals:

   DO NOT mandate speed limiters;

   DO NOT mandate front and side underride guards;

   DO NOT mandate higher insurance minimums;

   DO NOT enact a truck-only vehicle miles traveled tax or 
        expand tolling authority; and

   DO NOT pass the DRIVE-Safe Act.

    I want to take a moment to focus on the DRIVE-Safe Act, which I 
will address in greater detail later in this testimony. Contrary to 
what other associations repeat constantly, there is no driver shortage 
that requires passage of this bill. The notion of a driver shortage 
isn't supported by facts, data, or reputable research. In other words, 
it's a myth. We oppose this bill because it's a solution in search of a 
problem. We urge Congress to flatly reject it.
    Unfortunately, the DRIVE-Safe Act is symbolic of Washington's 
approach to trucking. For too long, Congress has allowed policy to be 
overly influenced by executives looking to maximize profits, activists 
who'd like to regulate truckers into oblivion, state and local 
governments who view truckers as rolling piggybanks, and self-
proclaimed ``experts'' who don't even know what the inside of a truck 
looks like. This has to change.
    Most of our members don't wear suits on a daily basis. Most of our 
members don't have advanced degrees in economics or engineering. But 
they know trucking. Congress needs to understand truckers aren't the 
problem, they are the solution--and treat them accordingly.
    Thankfully, there are lawmakers--such as Chairwoman Fischer and 
Congressman Brian Babin--who see much of the dysfunction in our 
industry and understand that maybe it's time to listen to what real 
truckers have to say.
    OOIDA appreciates being part of this hearing. We have some great 
ideas on how to fix many of the problems facing our industry, while 
simultaneously improving highway safety.
Electronic Logging Devices and Hours-of-Service Reform
    Today's truckers are subject to more regulations and greater 
enforcement than ever before, and while compliance with those 
regulations has never been higher, crash rates are still moving in the 
wrong direction. A prime example of this problem is the electronic 
logging device (ELD) mandate.
    This massively expensive rulemaking, disguised as a silver bullet 
to improve safety, has driven many experienced truckers out of the 
industry. The roughly $2 billion in costs associated with the mandate 
have imposed financial and compliance burdens on American businesses of 
all sizes, especially small carriers who are forced to spend their 
resources on installation, compliance, and service fees for equipment 
that has not shown any proven safety benefit. We urge the Committee to 
repeal the ELD rulemaking or consider commonsense legislation that 
would exempt small-business carriers and drivers who have exhibited a 
proven history of safety.
    Since December 2017, the implementation of the ELD mandate has 
highlighted the need for substantive hours-of-service (HOS) reform. 
Currently, the HOS regulations that dictate a truck driver's work 
schedule are overly complex, provide virtually no flexibility, and in 
no way reflect the physical capabilities or limitations of individual 
drivers. They effectively force drivers to be on the road when they are 
tired or fatigued, during busy travel times such as morning and 
afternoon rush hour, during adverse weather and road conditions, or 
when they simply are not feeling well.
    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) 2019 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) represents a welcomed shift toward 
developing regulations that better reflect the realities of trucking 
and improve safety for all highway users. OOIDA strongly supports the 
agency's approach, which will provide drivers more opportunities to 
rest when they are tired, to stay off the road during adverse driving 
conditions, and to maintain greater control over their own schedules. 
The provisions included in the NPRM will deliver much needed 
flexibility for drivers and notably do not increase the maximum 
allowable driving time.
    However, in order to maximize the safety benefits of these changes, 
drivers should have sole discretion over how and when they use each of 
the provisions. In response to the proposal, OOIDA submitted the 
following feedback:

   OOIDA supports the split-duty provision which would allow 
        drivers to ``pause'' the 14-hour clock for up to 3 consecutive 
        hours once per duty period.

   OOIDA recommends eliminating the 30-minute rest break rule 
        altogether. However, as an alternative, drivers should be 
        allowed to split the 30-minute break into smaller segments, 
        such as multiple 5 or 10 minute periods.

   OOIDA supports the 7/3 split sleeper-berth provision, but 
        recommends the agency also include 6/4 and 5/5 options.

   OOIDA supports both changes to the short haul exceptions, 
        which will extend the driving window from 12 to 14 hours and 
        expand the air mile radius from 100 to 150 air miles. We also 
        recommend allowing drivers using the short haul exception to 
        end their work shift at a different location than their 
        original dispatch.

   OOIDA supports extending the duty period from 14 to 16 hours 
        for drivers that use the adverse driving provision. We also 
        recommend expanding and clarifying conditions that would 
        qualify for the adverse driving provision.

    OOIDA applauds all of the Senators that supported greater HOS 
flexibility in a May 2019 letter to FMCSA. We encourage Members of 
Congress to continue constructively engaging in the HOS rulemaking 
process and avoid disrupting what our members hope will produce the 
most positive improvements to truck safety regulations in recent 
memory. Meaningful HOS reform will not only help the trucking industry 
and benefit highway safety, but can drive economic growth across the 
country, creating new opportunities and greater job security for 
millions of hard-working Americans.
Coercion
    As FMCSA is finalizing its HOS reforms, Congress should also be 
aware of a significant safety issue facing drivers--coercion. Coercion 
occurs when a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation 
intermediary threatens to, or actually does, take action against a 
driver who refuses to violate Federal safety regulations. Those 
coercing drivers are typically in positions of power, and drivers often 
feel pressure to engage in unsafe behavior to avoid losing their job or 
pay. This jeopardizes the safety of the driver as well as others on the 
road.
    Congress has recognized the dangers of coercion and previously 
enacted legislation that explicitly prohibited the practice. FMCSA 
finalized a rule in 2015 that established standards for what 
constitutes coercion, a method for truckers to report complaints, and a 
process for the agency to assess and take action on these complaints.
    Unfortunately, in our members' experience, this process has been 
wholly ineffective. Some of our members have never received a response 
to their complaint or have been told FMCSA had lost track of their 
submission. A lack of confidence in this system has discouraged drivers 
from reporting unsafe practices.
    With FMCSA finalizing regulatory reforms that will give drivers 
more flexibility in their schedules, it is critical they retain sole 
discretion over how these flexibilities are used. Congress, through its 
oversight of FMCSA, should make sure bad actors within our industry are 
being held accountable for any coercive practices. Drivers want to 
operate as safely as possible, but need meaningful support from the 
Federal government to ensure they aren't pressured to violate 
regulations.
Highway Funding
    As Congress considers solutions for the impending shortfall within 
the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), it must account for any proposal's impact 
on small-business truckers. America's truckers understand that the 
economic success and competitiveness of both their operations and the 
Nation depend on a safe, reliable, and well-funded transportation 
system. Accordingly, OOIDA supports efforts to increase HTF revenues so 
long as it is done in a fair and equitable way. Congress must steer 
clear of any proposals that would put an oversized financial burden on 
truckers, who already pay more than their fair share.
    A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found HTF 
revenues derived from the trucking industry through the heavy-vehicle 
and tire taxes are actually projected to increase over the next decade. 
Between the current diesel tax and these supplemental taxes, the 
trucking industry is estimated to increase its contributions to the HTF 
over this 10 year period.\1\ Furthermore, the costs of administering 
the existing Federal fuel taxes are extremely low--estimated to be less 
than 1 percent of all revenues collected.\2\ Congress should be looking 
to build on this relatively stable and predictable system. Therefore, 
OOIDA prefers boosting dedicated revenues to the HTF through reasonable 
and impartial increases to Federal gasoline and diesel taxes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ CBO, Issues and Options for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled by 
Commercial Trucks (2019).
    \2\ Transportation Research Board, Costs of Alternative Revenue 
Generation Systems, Report 689 (National Highway Cooperative Research 
Program, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are steadfastly opposed to several proposals that would 
disproportionately burden truckers. One potential funding mechanism we 
are concerned with is a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax. While this 
concept may sound appealing in theory, there are far too many questions 
and uncertainties for Congress to begin implementing any sort of VMT 
program in the next highway bill. There will be significant costs 
associated with a VMT tax as well, and implementation and 
administrative fees are likely to be at least ten times as high as the 
current fuel tax system.\3\ Like the current fuel taxes, a VMT system 
would also fail to remain viable if not indexed to inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ CBO, Issues and Options for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled by 
Commercial Trucks (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are also particularly concerned about proposals that would 
single out the trucking industry for a truck-only VMT. This would 
assure that truckers pay an unfairly high cost to prop up the HTF. We 
also oppose any efforts to utilize ELDs to impose a VMT on motor 
carriers. Small-business truckers have already borne a significant and 
disproportionate cost for complying with the ELD mandate, and utilizing 
the devices to facilitate a VMT program would create new costs and 
greater privacy issues.
    OOIDA also remains opposed to the expansion of tolling. Tolling 
systems lack the efficiency and effectiveness of current funding 
mechanisms. Research has shown that tolling is an extremely wasteful 
method of generating revenue compared to fuel taxes, with as much as 30 
percent of funds going to administrative costs \4\ rather than the 
construction and rehabilitation of roads and bridges. Additionally, 
toll roads consistently fail to meet revenue projections, creating 
unanticipated funding shortfalls, which can lead to deteriorating road 
conditions and early toll rate increases. In some states, tolling 
revenue is even used to prop-up urban transit systems, which is 
frustrating for truckers. In Pennsylvania, tolls on the state's 
turnpike will increase in 11 straight years to generate sufficient 
revenue to support some of the state's non-highway infrastructure. 
Truckers predominantly pay tolls out-of-pocket, as shippers seldom 
reimburse charges under the freight rate system. For small trucking 
businesses, any expansion of tolling, especially on major highways like 
interstates, will directly undercut their bottom line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Transportation Research Board, Costs of Alternative Revenue 
Generation Systems, Report 689 (National Highway Cooperative Research 
Program, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are also closely monitoring proposals to repeal the Federal 
Excise Tax (FET). Any FET repeal must include a practical pay-for to 
offset for the lost HTF revenues it would create. Our members are 
concerned that some suggested offsets would generate inequitable 
financial burdens among motor carriers, leaving primarily small-
business truckers and owner-operators--who are less likely to purchase 
new trucks than their larger competitors--to make up the difference.
Compensation and Misclassification
    Like all hard-working Americans, drivers want to be appropriately 
compensated for their work. For decades, driver compensation has been 
eroding, making careers in trucking less appealing to new entrants and 
less sustainable for experienced truckers.
    Currently, drivers are exempt from overtime pay through the Fair 
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This exemption was implemented in the 1930s 
to prevent drivers from working too many hours, but today, it simply 
prevents them from receiving adequate compensation for the work they 
do. It also contributes to problems with excessive detention time 
because shippers, receivers, and others in the industry have no 
financial incentive to load and unload trucks in an efficient manner. 
Simply put, this exemption makes it the law that a driver's time should 
be less valued than other professions. The FLSA exemption for truck 
drivers is outdated and should be repealed.
    OOIDA is committed to working with Congress as it examines and 
potentially addresses other issues related to driver compensation, such 
as employee classification. Without question, some truck drivers are 
misclassified, including some of our members. At the same time, the 
owner-operator business model has a well-established history and has 
provided millions of drivers the opportunity to be true independent 
contractors and small-business entrepreneurs. Congress should therefore 
avoid jeopardizing this beneficial model when addressing 
misclassification issues arising from the advent of the ``gig 
economy.''
    In trucking, misclassification is generally done through ``lease-
purchase'' agreements which are arrangements where motor carriers lease 
a vehicle to a driver with the promise of fair compensation, future 
ownership of the truck, and ``independence'' from traditional employer-
employee requirements. The most problematic lease-purchase schemes are 
generally those that require the driver to lease their truck to the 
motor carrier when both are effectively the same entity. Through lease-
purchase agreements, motor carriers avoid providing employee benefits, 
paying applicable taxes, and complying with other labor and employment 
laws.
    That said, the trucking industry is incredibly complex, and any 
potential legislation to address misclassification should not only 
account for its diversity, but also the host of Federal regulations 
that small-business truckers must comply with. It's important to 
remember the majority of owner-operators are true independent 
contractors--they own their equipment, negotiate their contracts, and 
control their terms of work.
    Unfortunately, ill-conceived legislation involving 
misclassification has the potential to disrupt the livelihood of small-
business truckers. Our members have already experienced this disruption 
in California with the enactment of AB5. This policy has pushed many 
motor carriers to sever ties with independent owner-operators from the 
state. Given the unique nature of the trucking industry, we urge 
Congress to consult with independent owner-operators before considering 
any legislation that could negatively impact their businesses and 
compensation.
The Driver Shortage Myth and DRIVE-Safe Act
    Far too many Members of Congress have accepted the driver shortage 
myth, which illustrates a troubling lack of understanding about our 
industry. Taking a closer look at what's actually occurring in trucking 
will reveal there is no driver shortage at all. It will also show that 
embracing some of the solutions proposed by those peddling the myth 
will only compound many of the actual problems facing our industry.
    OOIDA strongly opposes efforts that would lower the minimum age 
requirement for truckers engaged in interstate commerce. S. 569, the 
DRIVE-Safe Act, presents obvious safety concerns for the new truck 
drivers it hopes to attract, as well as the traveling public who would 
share the road with them. Younger drivers--especially teenagers--
generally lack the maturity and experience to operate a commercial 
motor vehicle (CMV) at the safest levels. Research indicates CMV 
drivers under the age of 19 are four times more likely to be involved 
in fatal crashes than all truck drivers, and CMV drivers between the 
ages of 19-20 are six times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes 
compared to all truck drivers. The DRIVE-Safe Act would allow these 
young drivers to make cross-country trips, requiring them to drive in 
terrain and weather conditions they may find completely unfamiliar. We 
acknowledge operational challenges exist for drivers near border 
cities, such as Kansas City, MO, and Kansas City, KS. However, 
operating across state lines in the greater Kansas City area is much 
different than driving across the country on a routine basis.
    While these clear safety implications alone should dissuade elected 
officials from lowering minimum age requirements, professional drivers 
understand there are long-standing problems within the trucking 
industry that such a change would only worsen. For decades, our 
country's largest motor carriers and the trade associations in 
Washington that represent them have touted the myth of a driver 
shortage as a means to promote policies designed to maintain the 
cheapest labor supply possible. Over the same period, driver 
compensation has remained relatively stagnant, failing to increase at a 
rate that keeps pace with inflation. Experience tells us many of those 
entities pushing for S. 569 would simply use it to take advantage of a 
new pool of drivers--teenagers, who would be subjected to poor working 
conditions, predatory lease-to-own schemes, and woefully inadequate 
compensation.
    Rather than developing legislation to allow more teenagers behind 
the wheel of 80,000 pound trucks, Congress should be taking steps to 
reverse the incessantly high driver turnover rate, which remains 
precariously high among many large truckload carriers. Reviewing the 
American Trucking Associations' (ATA) quarterly reports on driver 
turnover, you'll discover the rates among large carriers are 
particularly troubling--generally falling anywhere between 70 and 100 
percent annually since 2011. In their most recent report, the 
organization estimated the annualized rate for 2019 through the third 
quarter at 96 percent. Further dispelling the driver shortage myth, the 
ATA's press release on the December 2019 report explains, ``Large 
carriers reduced the number of drivers they employed, in keeping with 
lackluster freight levels. . .'' It continues, ``During the first two 
quarters of the year, larger carriers added drivers, but in the third 
quarter they started right-sizing their fleets [emphasis added].'' \5\ 
By no means does this sound like an industry suffering from a shortage 
of drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ American Trucking Associations, Turnover Rate at Truckload 
Carriers Rose in Third Quarter, December 19, 2019, https://
www.trucking.org/article/Turnover-Rate-at-Truckload-Carriers-Rose-in-
Third-Quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evidence from multiple Federal agencies also helps dispel this 
myth. By FMCSA's estimates, there are over 400,000 new CDLs issued 
annually, which shows there is certainly no shortage of new entrants to 
the industry.\6\ Additionally, a 2019 analysis from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics found the labor market for truckers is similar to that of 
other blue-collar professions, and that while there is certainly a high 
rate of turnover in some parts of the trucking industry, there doesn't 
appear to be evidence of a shortage.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ FMCSA, Regulatory Evaluation of Entry-Level Driver Training 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regulatory Impact Analysis Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (March 2016).
    \7\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, Is the U.S. 
labor market for truck drivers broken? (March 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The perpetual churn of truckers driven by large fleets is also 
detrimental to safety, as those who leave the workforce are immediately 
replaced with less experienced individuals in an effort to keep labor 
costs as low as possible and avoid improving difficult working 
conditions. Without addressing the underlying circumstances that have 
led to excessive churn, we anticipate turnover rates will remain high 
or even increase--no matter the age of the driver.
    Though allowing CDL holders under the age of 21 to engage in 
interstate commerce is unlikely to reduce driver turnover or improve 
safety, we appreciate the DRIVE-Safe Act's approach to robust new 
entrant training. Aspects of the minimum standards included in the 
legislation, especially 240 hours of mandatory behind-the-wheel 
experience, are a good starting point for enhancing Federal training 
requirements for current entry-level drivers, regardless of age. 
Ensuring properly trained drivers are entering the workforce is 
paramount to improving highway safety and reducing crashes. It will 
also help ensure those beginning a career in trucking are better 
prepared for the challenges and demands of the profession, which is 
another critical element to reducing turnover rates.
    However, we are greatly concerned about provisions within the bill 
that permit drivers as young as 21 to train new drivers. This approach 
is dangerously insufficient. Only the most experienced truckers with a 
thorough history of safe driving should be permitted to train anyone 
getting behind the wheel of a CMV for the first time.
    OOIDA is eager to work with elected officials on legislation that 
helps make trucking a viable and sustainable career choice for 
Americans who are prepared to enter the driver workforce. However, we 
will continue to dispel the driver shortage myth and oppose bills like 
the DRIVE-Safe Act that are built upon it. This proposal jeopardizes 
driver and highway safety in an effort to provide corporate motor 
carriers the cheap labor they crave.
The Truck Parking Crisis
    In 2015, the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Jason's Law 
survey report recognized the lack of truck parking had become a serious 
highway safety concern.\8\ Unfortunately, the problem has only worsened 
since then. States and local communities across the U.S. are struggling 
to maintain existing capacity, let alone keep pace with increasing 
demand. Today, professional drivers encounter truck parking shortages 
in every corner of the country. Absent Federal involvement, the problem 
will continue to worsen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Jason's Law Truck Parking Survey Results and Comparative 
Analysis, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Federal Highway 
Administration, United States Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Professional drivers regularly report difficulty accessing safe 
parking for CMVs, especially during times of high demand. Surveys of 
our members routinely reveal most truckers have been forced to drive 
beyond the point where they feel safe and alert simply because they 
could not find a place to park. This not only jeopardizes their own 
safety, but also the well-being of the motoring public with whom they 
share the road. Truckers are commonly placed in no-win situations where 
they must decide to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a 
vacant lot--or violate Federal HOS regulations by continuing to search 
for a safer and legal alternative.
    Forcing truckers to spend excessive amounts of time searching for 
parking is certainly a serious safety concern for all highway users, 
but the current crisis also creates additional hazards for the motoring 
public. As a last resort, drivers who are unable to find adequate 
parking reluctantly park in hazardous road-side locations, such as the 
shoulders of highways and interstate entry and exit ramps. This creates 
serious safety risks for law enforcement officials as well. Often, they 
are faced with the dilemma of allowing a tired trucker to rest in a 
dangerous location or ordering them to relocate when they are out of 
drivable hours.
    OOIDA has spent the last year working with our industry partners 
and Members of Congress to develop a solution to this growing safety 
concern. Too many Federal dollars have been spent recently on 
technology-based solutions that fail to address the root of the 
problem. We've determined Federal investment in the expansion of 
trucking parking capacity is key. Soon, bipartisan legislation will be 
introduced in the House that would establish a competitive 
discretionary grant program--funded through existing highway safety 
programs--for truck parking projects across the country. With a focus 
on increasing capacity, the bill would provide funding for the 
construction of new rest areas and truck parking facilities, while also 
helping public entities convert existing spaces--such as inspection 
sites, weigh stations, and closed rest areas--into truck parking 
locations.
    While this Committee may not maintain jurisdiction over this 
specific proposal, your support for addressing this national safety 
concern is vital. The truck parking crisis is a problem that affects 
every segment of our industry--from the largest fleets to single truck 
operators. Addressing the shortage has also been identified as a 
priority by the law enforcement community. It's not often so many 
industry stakeholders are in agreement on how to begin solving a 
problem--let alone agreeing the problem exists in the first place.
    OOIDA believes providing Federal investment in the expansion of 
truck parking capacity must be a top priority for Congress in the 
development of the next highway bill. Addressing this problem will 
certainly demonstrate to professional drivers that Congress understands 
one of the most significant challenges they face on a daily basis and 
wants to help. Additionally, members of this Committee have shown 
particular interest in expanding the role of women in our industry. Our 
female members often identify the lack of safe parking as a factor that 
not only prevents other women from beginning a career in trucking, but 
discourages many experienced drivers from remaining behind the wheel.
Speed Limiters
    Efforts to mandate the use of speed limiters on CMVs is an example 
of a proposal that may initially sound effective, but in reality would 
likely lead to higher crash rates. As a result, OOIDA adamantly opposes 
S. 2033, the Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act of 
2019.
    Highways are safest when all vehicles are moving at the same 
relative rate of speed. Establishing a one-size-fits-all mandate 
limiting CMVs to a certain rate (S. 2033 favors 65 miles per hour) 
would create dangerous speed differentials between heavy trucks and 
other vehicles. Decades of highway research shows greater speed 
differentials increase interactions between truck drivers and other 
road users. Studies have consistently demonstrated that increasing 
interactions between vehicles directly increases the likelihood of 
crashes.\9\,\10\ Speed limiters also create dangerous 
driving conditions, including challenges navigating merges and running 
blockades (known as elephant races) that increase ``road rage'' among 
other drivers. Arbitrary speed limits make it difficult for truck 
drivers to switch lanes to accommodate merging traffic at entrance 
ramps--or to merge themselves. Other drivers often react to these 
situations in aggressive and unpredictable ways, creating unnecessary 
hazards for themselves and our members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ David Solomon, Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to 
Speed, Driver, and Vehicle, Bureau of Public Roads (1964).
    \10\ Johnson and Pawar, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-
Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on rural Interstate Highways, 
Mack-Blackwell Rural Transportation Center (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only would mandated speed limiters increase road hazards, they 
would do nothing to prevent speeding in some of the most safety 
sensitive situations. In certain road conditions, such as inclement 
weather or construction zones, well-trained drivers know to reduce 
their speed to maintain safe operation. Since the safest speed in these 
scenarios is often below 65 mph, speed limiters would likely have a 
very limited impact on preventing crashes. Moreover, most truck-related 
crashes occur on roads with a posted limit below 65 mph, rendering the 
supposed benefits of proposals like S. 2033 meaningless.
    In addition to increasing crash rates, this legislation would 
disadvantage America's small-business motor carriers. In their proposed 
2016 rulemaking on speed limiters, FMCSA and the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) admitted that ``this joint 
rulemaking could put owner-operators and small fleet owners. . .at a 
disadvantage in some circumstances.'' \11\ One remaining competitive 
advantage for small trucking companies over their larger competitors is 
the lack of a need to speed limit trucks for fleet management purposes. 
Instead, small trucking businesses are able to operate at the speeds 
determined to be safe by state officials, which in many cases is above 
65 mph. Indeed, FMCSA and NHTSA concluded that as a result of losing 
this advantage, ``some of the affected owner-operators would work for 
trucking companies as independent contractors. If all of the affected 
owner-operators worked for trucking companies as independent 
contractors, they would lose $54 million in labor income.'' Smaller 
carriers working at the behest of the larger fleets is not ideal for 
safety, consumers, or the trucking industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ FMCSA and NHTSA, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe 
Operation; Speed Limiting Devices, https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FMCSA-2014-0083-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our members will tell you they have experienced countless scenarios 
when their expertise and discretion was needed to avoid an accident or 
other dangerous situations. In many of these instances, speed limiters 
would curtail their ability to safely respond to hazards. Rather than 
mandating speed limiters, the most efficient and cost-effective means 
to promote safer roads is simply enforcing existing speed limits, which 
Congress authorized states to set based on their own unique factors.
Underride Guards
    OOIDA strongly opposes efforts to mandate the installation of side 
and front underride guards on all CMVs and trailers that exceed 10,000 
pounds in gross vehicle weight (GVW), including S. 665, the Stop 
Underrides Act.
    Over the last several decades, NHTSA has considered numerous 
options involving underride guards, but has consistently concluded 
Federal mandates would be impractical and costly, thus outweighing any 
perceived safety benefits. The Stop Underrides Act intentionally 
disregards this reality and ignores the safety, economic, and 
operational concerns we have raised with its sponsors and supporters. 
Furthermore, in April 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a report on truck underride guards that indicated more data and 
research was necessary to fully understand the scope of this type of 
crash and how they can be prevented. The report also highlighted many 
of the concerns our members, trailer manufacturers, and law enforcement 
officials have about the equipment.
    To be clear, we agree the existing rear underride guard on 
trailers--commonly referred to as a ``DOT Bumper'' in the United 
States--could be enhanced to reduce the risk of rear underrides for 
automobiles. If the Canadian standard was applied in the U.S. on the 
manufacture of new trailers, we would not oppose it. Unfortunately, S. 
665 goes too far even in this regard. The bill would mandate truckers 
install rear guards on trailers that can't physically accommodate them, 
such as low boys, household goods trailers, auto transporters, etc. The 
mandate would also retroactively apply to all trailers, including those 
nearing the end of their service.
    However, our biggest concern with S. 665 remains the required 
installation of side underride guards. While existing technologies may 
reduce passenger compartment intrusion in certain situations, the bill 
fails to recognize numerous other issues limiting the real world 
practicality of side underride guards. For example, installation of the 
equipment would unquestionably create challenges for truckers 
navigating grade crossings and high curbs, backing in to sloped loading 
docks, properly utilizing spread-axle trailer configurations, 
conducting DOT-required trailer inspections, and accessing vital 
equipment located under the trailer--such as brakes. GAO's report 
notes, ``Representatives from several trailer manufacturers, trucking 
industry organizations, and police departments we spoke with cited 
challenges with the use of side underride guards that would need to be 
addressed prior to widespread adoption by the industry.'' \12\ S. 665 
would also mandate side underride guards on equipment that can't 
physically accommodate them, such as intermodal, bulk, specialized, and 
flatbed trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ GAO, Truck Underride Guards Improved Data Collection, 
Inspections, and Research Needed, GAO-19-264 (Washington, D.C.: March 
2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, S. 665 requires the installation of front underride 
guards on CMVs. Admittedly, we're less familiar with these devices 
because they aren't currently commercially available in the U.S. 
However, similar to the side underride guard provisions, this 
requirement would likely be extremely problematic. GAO's report also 
notes, ``Representatives from a tractor manufacturer that operates in 
both the U.S. and the European Union told us that front guard designs 
currently used in the European Union would not be compatible with 
conventional tractors used in the U.S., stating that these guards would 
need to be installed in the same space that the bumper, frame, and some 
equipment--including crash avoidance technologies--already occupy.''
    We would also point out the bill would require the creation of 
performance standards for underride devices. Meaning, if an underride 
guard fails to meet the standard while in operation, the vehicle would 
be placed out of service and unable to operate. We have no idea how a 
trucker would get a side underride guard, weighing approximately 1,000 
pounds, delivered to the roadside. Nor do we have any idea how the 
equipment would be installed safely on the roadside.
    In sum, the bill mandates devices that aren't practical, don't 
physically work, and would create serious operational difficulties for 
our members. We should also note that the bill impacts millions of 
CMVs, trailers, straight trucks, and other vehicles. With an estimated 
price tag of tens of billions of dollars, S. 665 would be the costliest 
Federal trucking mandate in history.
Minimum Insurance Requirements
    Recently, trial lawyers and their allies in Congress have proposed 
legislation to increase the minimum level of financial responsibility 
for trucking companies operating in interstate commerce. While working 
to gather support for their proposal, organizations like the American 
Association for Justice (AAJ) have shared wholly misleading information 
about this issue. OOIDA would like set the record straight on the real 
impact a minimum insurance level increase would have on highway safety 
and the catastrophic effect that would have on small trucking 
businesses.
    Federal law currently requires motor carriers engaged in interstate 
commerce to carry at least $750,000 in liability coverage ($5 million 
for those hauling hazardous materials). However, the vast majority of 
carriers are insured at $1 million or more. Having additional coverage 
is obviously not required, but the insurance industry tends to 
naturally adjust levels based on market conditions. If enacted, the 
AAJ's latest proposal--H.R. 3781 (the INSURANCE Act)--would increase 
minimums from $750,000 to a whopping $4,923,154. Small-business 
truckers would quickly see their premiums at least triple.
    Contrary to claims by those who will benefit financially from an 
increase in insurance minimums (i.e., trial lawyers), this will do 
absolutely nothing to improve highway safety. Supporters of the 
proposal have no reputable research indicating it would. And they never 
will, because there is no correlation between insurance coverage and 
highway safety. In fact, increasing insurance minimums would likely 
force many owner-operators--who are collectively among the safest, most 
experienced drivers on the road--out of the industry because premiums 
would become unaffordable. As a result, legislation like H.R. 3781 
would actually decrease highway safety, not improve it.
    Proponents of the bill believe today's insurance requirements need 
to be increased simply because they haven't been raised since the 
1980s. This erroneously assumes the insurance industry only provides 
coverage at the federally-mandated levels. Again, most motor carriers 
are insured at least $250,000 above the minimum threshold because 
that's what the market dictates.
    AAJ and their allies want you to believe the rising cost of 
healthcare for those involved in a crash justifies an increase in 
insurance minimums. Unfortunately, research indicates this is patently 
false.
    As required by MAP-21, FMCSA commissioned the John A. Volpe 
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to research this issue in greater 
detail. In 2014, Volpe released its report, which explained, ``The vast 
majority of CMV-caused crashes have relatively small cost consequences, 
and the costs are easily covered with the limits of mandatory liability 
insurance [emphasis added].'' If you're wondering if this includes some 
of the most costly crashes, Volpe adds, ``A small share exceed the 
mandatory minimum but are often covered by other insurance or assets.'' 
There are certainly catastrophic crashes that exceed today's 
requirements. However, Volpe helps put these rare occurrences into 
perspective by stating, ``A final portion of high-cost crashes would 
fall outside compensation instruments even if the minimum liability 
were raised.'' In short, these exceptional cases are often times so 
expensive that no level of insurance would cover them. We would also 
point out that, according to Volpe, only 0.06 percent of crashes result 
in damages that exceed today's minimum coverage limits.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Kent Hymel et al., Financial Responsibility Requirements for 
Commercial Motor Vehicles, John A. Volpe Transportation Systems Center 
(2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So what is the point of H.R. 3781?
    It should come as no surprise that AAJ is pursuing this bill, as 
trial lawyers typically receive 30-40 percent of a judgment or 
settlement against a motor carrier--and sometimes more. For AAJ, this 
is a shrewd, if not unabashedly transparent effort--mandating an 
increase in coverage limits will exponentially boost their judgment and 
settlements.
    What remains most important is proposals to increase minimum 
insurance rates for motor carriers will do nothing to improve highway 
safety. Rather, it imposes yet another unnecessary and expensive 
Federal mandate that will force the safest and most experienced 
truckers off the road, while further lining the pockets of our Nation's 
trial lawyers. There are so many other proven ways to reduce crashes 
and improve safety without eviscerating the livelihood of our Nation's 
hard-working, small-business truckers.
Automatic Emergency Braking
    Automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems have garnered increased 
attention lately because of their potential to improve highway safety. 
We agree technology like AEB is promising, but efforts to mandate new 
CMVs be equipped with the systems are premature. While AEB is designed 
to help reduce or prevent rear-end collisions, this technology is still 
in its infancy and can create new challenges and dangers for drivers, 
such as false or unexpected system activation. In fact, several of our 
members who chose to utilize AEB later reported deactivating the 
systems because of operational difficulties.
    For small-business truckers, AEB technology is also very expensive 
and studies have shown it is not clear that the benefits of these 
systems currently outweigh the costs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ K. Grove et al., Field Study of Heavy-Vehicle Crash Avoidance 
Systems, NHTSA (June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislation introduced in the House--H.R. 3773, the Safe Roads 
Act--would require AEB systems on all new CMVs, including every truck 
and vehicle involved in interstate commerce that has a vehicle weight 
or GVWR of at least 10,001 pounds. Not only does this encompass all 
tractor trailers, but also many pickup trucks and other heavy-duty 
vehicles.
    Again, an industry-wide mandate is entirely premature at a time 
when AEB technology has yet to be perfected. In fact, improvements to 
the technology are likely to expand AEB's deployment without a Federal 
mandate, provided truckers can trust these systems are reliable, cost-
effective solutions to reducing crashes.
Compliance, Safety, Accountability Reform
    Since the inception of the Compliance, Safety Accountability (CSA) 
and Safety Measurement System (SMS) programs in 2010, there has been a 
steady increase in truck related crashes, injuries, and fatalities. 
Congress must continue holding FMCSA accountable in improving SMS/CSA 
methodology. The agency must implement recommendations from the 2017 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in a way that accurately 
reflects crash risk and crash causation. The NAS study proposed that 
FMCSA should investigate data on carrier characteristics such as 
methods and levels of driver compensation to improve SMS/CSA. OOIDA 
supports a Federal study reviewing the impacts of driver compensation 
and safety.
    As FMCSA works to implement the NAS recommendations, OOIDA opposes 
efforts that would return CSA scores to public view before the agency's 
reforms are completed. Publicly posting an analysis of violations 
developed under CSA while the system is still being improved is 
extremely problematic. Rather than creating arbitrary timeframes for 
the availability of data, Congress should focus its efforts on ensuring 
FMCSA is establishing a program that is fair, reliable, and actually 
based on safety.
Detention Time
    Generally, if the truck's wheels are not moving, drivers are not 
getting paid. As a result, many drivers spend countless unpaid on-duty 
hours being detained by shippers and receivers because Congress and 
FMCSA have failed to address excessive detention time. For far too 
long, the trucking industry has typically defined detention as any time 
spent waiting to load or unload in excess of two hours. This line of 
thinking completely discounts the value of a driver's time. Any updated 
definition or set of standards estimating reasonable detention periods 
must instead prioritize the driver's time. Shippers and receivers 
should not be awarded a complimentary two-hour grace period at the 
driver's expense.
    Detention time is both a safety and financial concern for small-
business truckers and professional drivers. A 2018 USDOT Inspector 
General (OIG) report estimated that a 15-minute increase in average 
dwell time--the total time spent by a truck at a facility--increases 
the average expected crash rate by 6.2 percent. The study also 
estimated that detention time is associated with reductions in annual 
earnings of $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion for for-hire CMV drivers in 
the truckload sector and that detention reduces net income by $250.6 
million to $302.9 million annually for motor carriers in that 
sector.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General, Estimates Show 
Commercial Driver Detention Increases Crash Risks and Costs, but 
Current Data Limit Further Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation 
(Jan 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These findings from the OIG report echo what OOIDA members have 
been dealing with for years. According to a 2018 survey of our members, 
a majority of both those who operate under the 60 hour/7-day rule and 
those who operate under the 70 hour/8-day rule indicated they spend 
between 11 and 20 hours each week waiting to load or unload their 
truck. In other words, those operating under the 60-hour rule spend 
approximately 18 percent to 33 percent of their possible drive time in 
detention, while those under the 70-hour rule spend 16 percent to 29 
percent of their time detained. This uncompensated time means 
individual drivers are effectively losing $865 to $1,500 per week.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Foundation, 
2018 Detention Time Survey (Jan 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The OIG study also concluded that, ``accurate industrywide data on 
driver detention do not currently exist because most industry 
stakeholders measure only time spent at a shipper or receiver's 
facility beyond the limit established in shipping contracts. Available 
electronic data cannot readily discern detention time from legitimate 
loading and unloading tasks, and are unavailable for a large segment of 
the industry.'' OOIDA supports FMCSA's efforts to collaborate with 
industry stakeholders to develop and implement a plan to better collect 
and analyze reliable, accurate, and representative data on the 
frequency and severity of driver detention times.
    As the agency gathers more information, we hope that both FMCSA and 
Congress will take substantive action to reduce excessive loading and 
unloading times and offset current safety and economic costs associated 
with detention time.
Entry-Level Driver Training
    OOIDA has supported national entry-level driver training (ELDT) 
standards for decades. In our opinion, the best way to promote safety 
is to improve driver training requirements. Currently, too many new 
drivers enter the industry without the basic skills to safely operate a 
CMV.
    Following MAP-21, which mandated minimum training requirements for 
individuals operating a CMV, OOIDA was an active participant in FMCSA's 
Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC). Composed of 
twenty-six industry members, the ELDTAC was tasked with conducting a 
negotiated rulemaking to establish, for the first time, national 
training standards for drivers. FMCSA published a final ELDT rulemaking 
in December 2016, implementing many of the ELDTAC recommendations. 
While far from sufficient, the ELDT final rule set a curriculum of 
benchmarks that potential drivers needed to meet, created adequate 
minimum qualifications for training instructors, and outlined essential 
processes for registering training providers that would hold schools 
and instructors accountable for their performance. The ELDT rule 
established a February 7, 2020, compliance date, giving the agency, 
states, and industry stakeholders more than three years to prepare for 
its implementation.
    Regrettably, just last week, with less than ten days before the 
training standards were set to go into effect, FMCSA announced a two-
year delay of the entire ELDT rulemaking. The agency explained, ``the 
extension is necessary so that FMCSA can complete the IT infrastructure 
to support the Training Provider Registry (TPR), which will allow 
training providers to self-certify, request listing on the TPR, and 
upload the driver-specific ELDT completion information to the TPR. 
Completion of the TPR technology platform is also necessary before 
driver-specific ELDT completion information can be transmitted from the 
TPR to the State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs). This delay also 
provides SDLAs time to make changes, as necessary, to their IT systems 
and internal procedures to allow them to receive the driver ELDT 
completion information transmitted from the TPR.'' Because the ELDT 
rule would immediately begin improving CMV safety, we find this 
reasoning to be unsatisfactory--especially considering the agency and 
SDLAs had more than sufficient time to prepare the necessary systems 
for the scheduled 2020 rollout. OOIDA encourages lawmakers to hold 
FMCSA accountable in completing the IT infrastructure so there are no 
further delays.
    In the interim period, OOIDA would like to work with Congress and 
FMCSA to improve the shortcomings of the original 2016 final 
rulemaking. We believe that the requirements could best be bolstered by 
establishing a minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel (BTW) 
training. A robust ELDT program that features mandatory BTW experience 
will improve safety and reduce crashes among entry-level CMV drivers.
Autonomous Vehicles
    While OOIDA acknowledges the benefits that autonomous vehicles 
(AVs) may eventually bring, we believe lawmakers and the Federal 
government must take careful and proper steps to ensure that AVs 
optimally serve both the general public and CMV drivers. Professional 
drivers will likely be the first to experience the technology's 
shortcomings or deficiencies outside of controlled testing scenarios, 
potentially creating serious safety concerns for our members and the 
driving public. Additionally, OOIDA members and millions more working 
in other segments of trucking face a particularly uncertain future, as 
technology may first diminish the quality of their jobs, and then 
threaten to displace them completely. Unlike many of the industries 
involved in the proliferation of AV technology, truckers will probably 
not experience significant economic gains under a looming autonomous 
revolution.
    Like all other safety systems and technologies, our members want to 
know that AVs will perform dependably. Unfortunately, DOT's recent AV 
4.0 guidelines fall short of providing a thorough research, 
development, and deployment environment to ensure that AVs, including 
autonomous CMVs, can operate safely. AV 4.0 continues to rely on self-
certification and a voluntary reporting system as the way to balance 
and promote safety and innovation. This system fails to ensure the 
transparency that is necessary for all stakeholders, including 
professional drivers, to evaluate the performance of AVs. Without this 
transparency, it will be extremely difficult for drivers to assess 
manufacturers' claims about these new technologies and how they will 
impact a driver's safety and livelihood.
    As the Committee considers addressing AVs, we believe any 
legislation should be limited to motor vehicles weighing less than 
10,000 pounds. The safe operation of an automobile differs greatly from 
that of a heavy vehicle. The introduction of autonomous technology to 
both types of vehicles will present distinct safety challenges and 
concerns that should be addressed and regulated on separate paths. 
Features unique to the trucking industry, including how changing 
technology may affect the jobs of millions of American drivers, merits 
the development and consideration of policies specific to heavy 
vehicles.
    There are many other challenges that will need to be reconciled 
before AVs can be safely deployed, including questions about liability, 
cybersecurity, automation bias, insurance, and more. Small-business 
truckers and professional drivers possess the knowledge and experience 
that will be necessary to properly identify these concerns. While we 
are still years away from fully automated trucks, decisions made today 
will have a significant impact on how these technologies are deployed, 
and ultimately, on the livelihood of professional truck drivers and the 
economy at large. We look forward to working with elected officials, 
Federal regulators, and our industry partners to ensure AV policies are 
developed in responsible manner that takes into account the perspective 
of American truckers.
Truck Size and Weight
    Congress should oppose calls to increase truck size and weight 
limits on our roads. Increasing the gross vehicle weight limit above 
80,000 pounds would not only diminish safety and accelerate the 
deterioration of highway conditions, but would also have a dramatic 
impact on small trucking businesses that would be forced to modify 
their equipment at great cost just to remain viable, with virtually no 
return on their investment. Furthermore, allowing longer combination 
trailers, known as `twin 33s', on our roads would only benefit a 
handful of large corporate motor carriers, but would have a negative 
impact on safety, infrastructure, and the rest of the trucking 
industry. It would be unwise to take action that would increase 
infrastructure repair costs at a time when available funding is already 
dwindling.
    We oppose any wholesale changes to size and weight limits, as well 
as any pilot programs or industry-, region-, or corridor-specific 
exemptions. These one-off exemptions still present the same concerns 
described above, cause confusion for law enforcement, and increase the 
likelihood that Congress will one day move to increase overall limits.
    We appreciate Chairman Wicker's recognition of the problems created 
by longer and heavier trucks and are thankful for his long-standing 
efforts to oppose any increases. We look forward to working with the 
Committee as there will inevitably be continued efforts to pursue these 
misguided measures.
DataQ
    The Federal Government allows truck drivers, motor carriers, and 
others to request a review of FMCSA-issued data, such as violations and 
inspection reports that might be incorrect or incomplete. This is 
commonly referred to as a Request for Data Review, or DataQ. Under 
Federal law, states have the authority to establish their own review 
process, and unfortunately, nearly all of them have established a 
system that does not provide due process for truck drivers or motor 
carriers. Furthermore, in order to be eligible for certain safety grant 
funding, states are required to establish a system that collects 
accurate and complete data.\17\ We believe that many states are failing 
to live up to this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 49 CFR Sec. 350.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the current system, reviews and additional appeals in many 
states are considered by the same person or agency who issued the 
initial violation. This creates an inherent conflict of interest. Very 
few law enforcement officers are willing to admit they made a mistake, 
and as a result, truckers are often denied an appeal even if they are 
correct about an erroneous violation. This is problematic because 
violations remain on a driver's or carrier's safety record and can 
negatively impact the employability of a driver and increase insurance 
costs. In many cases, this can put a driver or a small carrier out of 
business. In one particularly egregious instance, an OOIDA member spent 
thousands of dollars in legal fees to get a correction for a violation 
issued for a Federal regulation that does not even exist.
    As a matter of fairness and due process, Congress should examine 
ways to provide greater transparency and impartiality in the DataQ 
process. This is not a revolutionary idea. FMCSA, in its manual for 
best practices, recommends that states, ``implement a `DataQs Review 
Council' to provide a fair and impartial secondary review of original 
decisions.'' \18\ While many states have failed to do this, Arizona and 
Minnesota are two states that have implemented a review process that we 
believe provides a good starting point for other states to emulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ FMCSA, DataQs Analyst Guide, Best Practices for Federal and 
State Agency Users (2nd Edition, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to providing due process to truckers, it is also in 
Congress' interest to have an accurate DataQ process because it will 
ensure that accurate safety data is utilized during future policy 
development. If the citations issued and data collected by state 
agencies cannot be trusted, then it undermines FMCSA's safety efforts 
more broadly.
Unified Carrier Registration (UCR)
    Administered by the Federal and state governments through a 
partnership with the motor carrier industry, the Unified Carrier 
Registration (UCR) program is an outdated and imbalanced system by 
which various taxes levied on motor carriers are collected and 
distributed to 41 participating states. The system was established in 
the 2005 highway bill for the purpose of maintaining a single national 
register of motor carriers conducting interstate travel, and it should 
be repealed in the next reauthorization.
    OOIDA has many concerns with the system, starting with the 
significant inequity in the assessment of fees. The current tax 
structure is particularly burdensome and costly for single truck 
operators and small fleets, who represent approximately 96 percent of 
registered motor carriers, but often have limited resources compared to 
large fleets. Inequalities are inherent between and within the 
arbitrary fee brackets of the program. As a result, small motor 
carriers unfairly and unjustifiably pay more per truck than their 
larger competitors.
    In addition to concerns about inequality, we believe the system 
lacks the transparency and accountability to merit the trust and 
support of motor carriers and Congress. In fact, the lack of any 
meaningful Federal oversight has allowed UCR to become an out-of-
control bureaucracy, rife with nepotism among public officials and 
private contractors. If members of this Committee took a closer look at 
the structure, operations, and decision-making of UCR and its board, we 
are certain you would share our disgust for the program.
    To make matters worse, it is difficult to determine precisely what 
programs UCR taxes are supporting within participating states. We do 
know many states use UCR revenue as a non-federal match for Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding, which is devoted 
primarily to enforcement. Essentially, these states are utilizing a 
federally-authorized tax on motor carriers to leverage additional 
Federal funding for the policing of them.
    Through our participation in the UCR board, we have pushed for 
reform of the system and opposed countless proposals that perpetuate 
the program's lack of fairness, transparency, and accountability. 
Unfortunately, the UCR board, which is dominated by state officials, 
appears incapable or unwilling to address these concerns. As a result, 
Congressional action is warranted and overdue.
    Many of our members believe the system no longer meets its 
objectives and favor eliminating it entirely in the next highway bill. 
Absent its repeal, a Federal audit of how states are using UCR revenue 
and MCSAP funding would be a constructive first step to determining if 
the system remains necessary. Since its inception, UCR has never been 
audited by the USDOT OIG. Congressional oversight of UCR is also badly 
needed and should occur more regularly. Since its launch, the system 
has never been the focus of a Congressional hearing. At the very least, 
Congress should work with industry stakeholders to identify ways the 
system can be reformed to enhance transparency and improve value to the 
truckers who pay UCR fees.
    Thank you for consideration of our testimony. OOIDA appreciates 
being part of this hearing. We believe these proposals can help fix 
many of the problems facing our industry, while simultaneously 
improving highway safety.
            Sincerely,
                                                Lewie Pugh,
                                          Executive Vice President,
                   Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Pugh. Next, we have Mr. 
Jake Parnell, who is the Manager of the Cattlemen's Livestock 
Market in California. He is also Director of the Livestock 
Marketing Association. Welcome, Mr. Parnell.

              STATEMENT OF JAKE PARNELL, MANAGER,

    CATTLEMAN'S LIVESTOCK MARKET ON BEHALF OF THE LIVESTOCK 
                     MARKETING ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Parnell. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member 
Duckworth, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 
me to testify about a stakeholder's perspective on the trucking 
industry and its related regulatory environment. Specifically, 
we appreciate the input from agriculture as a whole and in 
particular, the livestock industry were sought. My name is Jake 
Parnell. I manage Cattlemen's Livestock Market in Galt, 
California. I am testifying today on behalf of the members of 
the Livestock Marketing Association, an organization that I 
serve on the Board of Directors and a Member of the 
Transportation subcommittee.
    Livestock Market serves as a hub to gather and sell 
livestock from farmers and ranchers in a competitive bidding 
environment. I am also a member of the National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association, manage my own 500 head herd of commercial 
cattle, and run between 1,000 and 2,000 yearlings who are 
grazed on the West coast. Every Wednesday in Galt, livestock 
are trucked to our livestock market.
    Our market stimulates local economies and facilitates 
buyers gathering loads of livestock to be shipped to the next 
part of the production chain. The cornerstone for our business 
is the ability to gather livestock from farmers, ranchers, and 
dairymen who raise them and market them to buyers throughout 
the United States. This movement of livestock is entirely 
dependent upon the use of a very limited population of highly 
skilled haulers who drive livestock commercial motor vehicles. 
It might surprise you to hear that livestock producers and 
livestock auction markets are specifically impacted by 
transportation laws and regulations.
    For example, in California, which ranks fourth in total 
number of cattle, there is only one major feed yard. So the 
cattle we raise in most cases must be transported to the 
Pacific Northwest or more commonly the Midwest for feeding and 
processing. Time is everything for the well-being of the 
animals while being transported. The key to safely hauling 
livestock, especially in times of great heat and humidity, is 
to stop as infrequent as possible and to keep the trailer 
moving to provide ventilation.
    Unfortunately, although the majority of livestock calls can 
be concluded within the time-frame of the outlined hours of 
service regulation, livestock located in states outside of the 
center part of the country cannot reach their destination 
safely in an 11-hour drive time. When a driver runs out of time 
while hauling live animals, they are given a grim prospects of 
unloading livestock. If they can find somewhere willing to 
receive them or they must leave them on the trailer for a 10 
hour stretch to suffer from the elements, lack of ventilation, 
and possible injury.
    A hauler of live animals cannot unload on the side of the 
road or a local hotel. There are a few public pin systems along 
highways and the owners and managers of private feed yards and 
livestock markets rarely accept livestock in transit due to 
liability, staffing, and bio security concerns. Further, the 
act of loading and unloading livestock have been reported to be 
more stressful than the effect of transport itself. The drivers 
that transport the animals work hard at safety.
    A livestock hauler is forced by the nature of their cargo 
to drive more cautiously than a conventional cargo hauler 
because the live animals move throughout the trailer and can be 
severely injured if the driver turns too suddenly or drives too 
fast. Safety is so important to the livestock industry that 
many livestock haulers have participated in additional 
specialized training, including the Beef Industries Master 
Cattle Transporter Program, which provides instruction on 
proper animal handling, transportation methods, and focus on 
preventing driver fatigue.
    Due to all of this, livestock haulers boast a fantastic 
safety record. For instance, a study conducted by the FMCSA and 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute showed that 1,123 
accidents involve trucks hauling cargo and a mere 5 involve 
livestock transporters. Similarly, trucks involved in fatal 
accidents, Fact book 2008, a report conducted by the 
Transportation Research Institute, shows that of the 4,352 
trucks involved in fatal accidents, livestock haulers accounted 
for just 0.6 percent.
    With this great track record of safety in mind, American 
agriculture needs some help. The current hours of safety 
provide too rigid, one-size-fits-all framework, increase 
freight cost, and a shortage of qualified drivers can result in 
cattle in the coasts and in the Southeast being severely 
discounted. This can lead to producer and livestock hauler drop 
out and can be felt by the American consumer trying to put an 
affordable meal on their table.
    Live animal haulers need more flexibility in order to 
safely get there live cargo to its destination. The LMA 
sincerely appreciates the several members of this subcommittee, 
many of whom also serve on the Senate Ag committee, for their 
assistance and diligent work toward safe and practical 
solutions for our Nation's agriculture haulers.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Parnell follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Jake Parnell, Manager, Cattleman's Livestock 
        Market on behalf of the Livestock Marketing Association
I. Introduction
    Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting testimony about stakeholder 
perspectives on the trucking industry and related regulatory 
environment. Specifically, we appreciate that input from agriculture as 
a whole and the livestock industry in particular were sought.
    The individuals who raise and sell livestock take great interest in 
the regulatory structure surrounding the safe transport of those 
animals. As such, the industry, Congressional partners, and the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) continue to work together 
to seek and communicate understanding of Hours of Service (HOS) rules 
while finding safe and appropriate flexibilities for this specialized 
subset of haulers. It continues to be clear that rigid, one-size-fits 
all HOS requirements do not work when hauling live animals. We 
appreciate the recognition of Congress and the Agency that livestock 
haulers face unique challenges and look forward to continuing to work 
together to find solutions for this targeted segment of drivers.
II. Background
    This testimony is provided by Jake Parnell, Manager, Cattleman's 
Livestock Market. Mr. Parnell testifies on behalf of the Livestock 
Marketing Association (LMA), an organization for which he serves on the 
board of directors and a member of the transportation subcommittee. LMA 
is the leading national trade organization for more than 800 livestock 
marketing businesses located throughout the United States. LMA 
represents more than 75 percent of the regularly selling local 
livestock auction markets in the U.S. Livestock auction markets serve 
as a hub to gather and sell livestock for farmers and ranchers in a 
competitive bidding environment. This stimulates economies in local 
communities and provides farmers and ranchers the opportunity to 
receive a good price for their livestock. It also facilitates buyers 
gathering loads of livestock to be shipped to the next part of the 
production chain.
    Mr. Parnell has managed Cattleman's Livestock Market (CLM) in Galt, 
California since February 2007. CLM markets between 80,000 and 100,000 
head of cattle annually, of which over half end up in the Midwest for 
feeding or growing. Mr. Parnell is a member of the National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association and, as a producer, manages over 500 commercial cows, 
50 registered and show-type cows, and between 1000 and 2000 yearling 
steers and heifers that are grazed annually between California, Nevada, 
Oregon, and Washington.
III. Impact of Transportation Laws and Regulations on Agriculture and 
        the Livestock Industry
    The cornerstone of livestock auction businesses is selling 
livestock on behalf of farmers, ranchers, and dairymen to buyers who 
gather loads to be shipped to the next phase of production. This 
movement drives the economy of California and other states across the 
country. This movement is also dependent upon the use of a very limited 
population of highly skilled drivers who tend to be independent owner-
operators. While the Agency has safety oversight of more than 500,000 
motor carrier companies and 5 million active commercial driver's 
license holders operating across the nation, it estimates that only 3 
percent of trucks on the road are agricultural haulers and less than 1 
percent are livestock haulers.
A. Structure of Livestock Hauling Business
    Livestock auction markets, farmers, and ranchers are particularly 
impacted by transportation laws and regulations. Livestock markets 
serve as a hub and gathering point for nearly 46 million head of 
livestock each year. See 2018 Annual Report, Packers and Stockyards 
Program (available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
media/PSDAnnualReport2018.pdf). Livestock, primarily cattle, but also 
sheep, goats, and others, are trucked to market for sale and then 
hauled again to the country's highest quality grazing lands and 
feedyards in the central and southern plains. Livestock do not travel 
frequently in their lifetimes, but when they do, they can travel 
significant distances. For example, according to a survey conducted as 
part of the Beef Quality Assurance program, the mean distance traveled 
by feeder calves to Texas and Nebraska feedyards was approximately 
467.89 miles. This is a significant average given the immense quantity 
of ``local'' cattle raised within Texas, Nebraska, and their 
neighboring states, which need not travel significant distances to 
arrive at a feedyard.
    Many animals, not born in the center of the country must travel 
great distances. In California, which ranks fourth in total cattle 
numbers, 11,000 ranches raise about 600,000 head of beef cows and over 
1.78 million dairy cows, generating over $308 million in 2015 to the 
state alone. Because there is only one major feedyard in California, 
these cattle, in many cases must be transported to the central plains 
for feeding and processing, which is a significant drive.
    On the other side of the country, one quarter of the Nation's cow 
herd is located in the Southeast. Most farmers in this area have small 
herds, typically fewer than 20 head, and depend upon the services 
rendered by livestock markets and livestock dealers to gather their 
small calf crops into marketable groups. These calves must be shipped 
quickly and safely to grasslands and feedyards in the central and 
southern plains. The weather and access to feedstuffs in these regions 
are uniquely suited to successful cattle feeding. Time is everything 
for the wellbeing of the animals being transported. (Schwartzkopf-
Genswein, Ahola, Edwards-Callaway, Hale, and Paterson, 2016) (``From an 
animal welfare perspective, the total duration an animal is transported 
is more important than the total distance it travels.''). Animals can 
sustain long distances of travel if they are expediently and carefully 
transported by skilled drivers.
B. Stopping with Livestock is Impractical
    The key to safely hauling live animals, especially in times of 
great heat and humidity, is to stop as infrequently as possible and to 
keep the trailer moving to provide ventilation. The trailer environment 
has been identified as having the greatest effect on animal welfare 
during transport. (Mitchell and Kettlewell, 2008). In North America, 
transport trailers are ventilated by perforations in the aluminum walls 
of the trailer as well as openings in the roof. Consequently, the 
potential to have poor welfare outcomes is significant if the trailer 
is not moving, especially under extreme weather conditions. The 
association between decreased animal welfare and increased transport 
duration is well established and includes greater in-transit weight 
loss, lameness, incidence of nonambulatory cattle, and death, as well 
as increased morbidity in the feedyard upon arrival.
    The majority of livestock hauls can be concluded within the time-
frame outlined by HOS regulations without significant stops which limit 
airflow. However, unfortunately, for livestock located in or heading to 
states outside the center of the country, this is not the case. When a 
driver ``runs out of time'' while hauling live animals, they are given 
the grim prospects of unloading the livestock or leaving them on the 
trailer for a 10-hour stretch.
    Unlike the haulers of non-living products, a livestock hauler 
cannot merely find a safe place to park for their 10-hour rest and 
leave the cargo on the trailer. Leaving animals on a trailer to suffer 
from the elements, lack of ventilation, and probable injury is 
unacceptable.
    Simply unloading the animals for 10 consecutive hours of rest is 
also not a good option. First, there is often nowhere to unload them. A 
hauler of live animals cannot simply unload their charges on the side 
of the road or at a local hotel. There are no pen systems available 
along major American highways, and the owners of feedyards and 
livestock markets are extremely hesitant to accept livestock in 
transport due to liability, staffing, and biosecurity concerns.
    With respect to biosecurity, facility and livestock owners, as well 
as state and Federal animal health officials, spend significant time 
creating and following procedures to minimize risk of animal diseases 
spreading. This includes laws requiring certain livestock crossing 
state lines travel with interstate certificates of veterinary 
inspection that detail where the load came from and where it is going. 
The trouble with unloading livestock at some waypoint along the trip is 
that it is almost impossible for a driver to know where they will need 
to stop in 11 hours with any measure of certainty. These movement 
documents and the disease traceability programs associated with them 
are in place to track and prevent contagious disease outbreaks in this 
country. Every time animals in-transit are unnecessarily unloaded and 
penned next to other animals in-transit, the risk of disease spread 
increases.
    Furthermore, these locations are rarely equipped to handle and 
house species other than cattle, providing a challenge to haulers of 
horses, sheep, goats, and pigs. For those hauling bees and fish, the 
situation is even more challenging as these animals cannot be unloaded 
at all while in transit. Additional challenges exist if livestock are 
to be exported over the road to Canada or Mexico, as stringent trailer 
sealing and biosecurity measures are required for these exports. This 
process would be complicated by a rest period necessitating that the 
doors to the trailer be opened before they reach their destination 
across the border.
    Even if a location is willing to take animals in, unloading and re-
loading those animals has a negative impact on their wellbeing. The act 
of loading and unloading have been reported to be more stressful 
(elevated heart rate and stress-related hormones such as cortisol) than 
the effect of transport itself. (Camp et al., 1981). Animals that are 
unloaded, ``rested,'' and then re-loaded will not have rested at all. 
See Recommendations for Cattle Transport Duration in the U.S.--
Executive Summary. Capable animal handlers, such as livestock 
transporters, know that loading and unloading is extremely stressful, 
therefore, it is recommended that handling during these events be 
conducted slowly, gently, and quietly. (Grandin, 2014). Unloading and 
re-loading livestock in transit takes significant time. Gonzalez et 
al., (2012) reported loading and unloading times for commercially 
transported cattle to be on average 20 and 30 minutes with maximums of 
5 and 3 hours, respectively.
C. Livestock Haulers are Rare, Skilled, and Have a Proven Track Record 
        of Safety
    Not just anyone can be a livestock hauler; many see themselves as 
cattlemen/women first and truckers second. Our drivers are often part 
of small businesses consisting of an owner-operator or perhaps a few 
trucks. Their trailers are designed exclusively for the transport of 
livestock, which means when a driver decides to become a livestock 
hauler, they are usually unable to haul other types of cargo. As such, 
there is very little cross-over between the haulers of live animals and 
the haulers of traditional cargo, which can lead to serious trucker 
shortages, especially during peak sale seasons.
    The drivers that transport our animals work hard to further the 
interests of motorists and the wellbeing of the animals with which they 
are charged. Simply put, a livestock hauler is required by the nature 
of their live cargo to drive slower and more cautiously than a 
conventional cargo hauler because the live animals being hauled can 
move throughout the trailer and can be severely injured if the driver 
turns too suddenly, drives too fast, or stops too quickly. Safety of 
other motorists, our drivers, and the animals they haul is so important 
to the livestock industry that many livestock haulers have participated 
in additional specialized training, including the pork industry's 
Transport Quality Assurance (TQA) program and the beef industry's 
Master Cattle Transporter (MCT) program.
    Due to all of this, livestock haulers boast a fantastic safety 
record. For instance, the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, conducted 
by the FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, showed 
that of 1,123 accidents involving trucks hauling cargo, a mere five 
involved livestock transporters. Similarly, Trucks Involved in Fatal 
Accidents Factbook 2008, a report conducted by the Transportation 
Research Institute, shows that of 4,352 trucks involved in fatal 
accidents, livestock haulers accounted for just 0.6 percent.
IV. Outreach and Enforcement Continue to be a Challenge
    Although we appreciate the increased efforts FMCSA and carrier 
enforcement have made with respect to outreach and training, additional 
work in these spaces is necessary to keep drivers and livestock safe. 
It continues to be apparent that carrier enforcement requires specific 
training on what to do with livestock in-transit when a livestock 
hauler is taken out of service. It is simply unacceptable for live 
animals to suffer by being left to stand on a hot, stagnant trailer 
because of driver non-compliance. As such, we would strongly support 
continued coordination and cooperation between the Agency and industry 
to create plans for these situations and to troubleshoot issues as they 
arise. Some states have a head start with the livestock industry and 
transportation officials already making plans for these situations 
while others have not broached the topic.
V. Need for Relief
    Incompatibilities between the HOS rules and the live animal hauling 
industry highlighted by the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate 
have caused considerable disruption and freight price increases. Many 
farms and ranches are not within 11 hours of where the animals they 
raise must be shipped. Live animal haulers can safely travel greater 
distances than prescribed by HOS if they are allowed to more naturally 
manage their rest and work times.
    The current HOS provide a too-rigid one-size-fits-all framework for 
transportation that results in live animals being left to stand for 10 
hours at a time on trailers leading to significant mortality losses or 
being unloaded at midway pen systems presenting challenges from 
logistics, liability, animal welfare, and biosecurity standpoints. The 
reality is that the current HOS rules and the strict compliance with 
those regulations made necessary by ELDs will result in cattle on the 
coasts, in the Southeast, and the rangelands of the Northwest 
experiencing a regional discount or, even worse, being unmarketable or 
wholly unprofitable to raise. This will lead to livestock haulers, 
farmers, and ranchers going out of business. It will also be felt in a 
very real way by the American consumer trying to put an affordable meal 
on the table.
    The goal of the HOS regulations is to prevent driver fatigue and 
therefore reduce the number and severity of both fatal and non-fatal 
accidents. The long record of safe operation by the agricultural 
commodity hauling industry is evidence of the seriousness which the 
industry takes these issues.
VI. Requested Relief
    Perishable commodity haulers need more flexibility in order to 
safely get their cargo to its destination. The LMA sincerely 
appreciates several members of this subcommittee for their assistance 
and diligent work toward safe and practical solutions for our Nation's 
agricultural haulers.
    The LMA participates in regular conversations with the FMCSA in 
conjunction with a cross-industry coalition of associations. The 
coalition continues to participate in public hearings and comment 
periods, representing the needs of livestock haulers, marketers, and 
producers. We appreciate the Agency's efforts to create workable 
solutions for the trucking industry as a whole, as evidenced by the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 23, 2019, 
which sought stakeholder input on proposed changes to the HOS. 
Unfortunately, as described in the coalition's comments to the NPRM, 
the modifications proposed do not specifically address the unique 
challenges faced by our drivers, and additional solutions are 
necessary.
    On October 15, 2018, the coalition also filed a request for a 5-
year program specific to livestock haulers for modified HOS in exchange 
for extra training and documentation requirements. At present, the 
Agency has not acted on that request.
    The LMA and the rest of our agricultural coalition would also 
encourage Congress to support a technical amendment and clarification 
to apply the agricultural exemption found in 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1) to the 
both the source and destination of a livestock haul to account for 
unloading and wait time at livestock processing facilities, which can 
equate to delays of more than 1 hour.
    We are confident driver and animal safety can both be preserved and 
even improved through logical, data-driven flexibilities.
VII. Conclusion
    In the end, agricultural haulers and livestock transporters are 
sincerely concerned with the impact transportation regulations--both 
new and old--are having on our country's safe and economical food 
supply. Rigid HOS requirements do not work for livestock haulers. We 
appreciate the recognition of Congress and the Agency that livestock 
haulers are unique and look forward to continuing to work together to 
find solutions for this targeted segment of drivers. The safety of our 
roadways is of great importance and it can be coupled with practical 
solutions to address the need for humane and efficient transportation 
of live animals.

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. Finally, I would like to 
welcome Sergeant John Samis with the Delaware State Police. He 
is the President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. 
Welcome, sir.

 STATEMENT OF SERGEANT JOHN SAMIS, DELAWARE STATE POLICE; AND 
         PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE

    Mr. Samis. Good morning, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member 
Duckworth, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
inviting me to participate in today's discussion. As a Sergeant 
with the Delaware State Police, I supervise our CMV enforcement 
program and serve as President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance, which represents people who enforce CMV safety 
regulations throughout North America.
    As the trucking industry continues to evolve, technology is 
playing a leading role in constantly redefining the industry. 
The enforcement community must prepare for the future of 
trucking in order to meet our shared goal of reducing crashes 
and fatalities involving CMVs. In my written testimony, we 
highlight the progress made under the FAST Act and propose a 
number of recommendations aimed at further improving CMV 
safety. One of the most significant things Congress can do to 
help improve safety is provide the enforcement community with 
the flexibility and resources needed to address a growing 
industry that becomes more sophisticated by the day. CVSA 
members work with industry and FMCSA to reduce crashes and save 
lives.
    Enforcement officials inspect vehicles, interact with 
drivers, review motor carriers, and work to ensure that those 
operating on our roadways do so safely. The roadside 
enforcement program has helped to significantly reduce the 
number of crashes and fatalities that involve CMVs. However, 
the program provides only the foundation for a comprehensive 
approach to reaching zero fatalities.
    States build on that program with initiatives designed to 
meet their unique needs all with the goal of eliminating CMV 
involved crashes. Enforcement is only a portion of what the 
states do. There are outreach and education campaigns, 
technology deployments, and a focus on crash prevention and 
high-risk areas, as well as other creative programs designed to 
help industry understand and comply with safety requirements. 
Congress can help by giving the states the flexibility and 
funding needed to address their own, unique safety needs, 
meeting their core responsibility of conducting inspections and 
ensuring regulatory compliance by also innovating to keep pace 
with industry. For example, we are asking Congress to make two 
small changes to the grant programs that help fund State CMV 
enforcement activities.
    First, we are asking for an additional year to spend grant 
funds. We are also asking that FMCSA like FHWA be given the 
authority to reallocate unspent funds rather than return them 
to the treasury. We need to keep every dollar allocated to 
critical safety programs where they belong. In addition, states 
need the tools to operate an effective program. Given the 
growing size and complexity of the trucking industry, 
jurisdictions do not have the resources to inspect every 
vehicle, driver, and motor carrier on a regular basis.
    As a result, inspectors interact with only a fraction of 
the trucks on the road. To maximize resources, jurisdictions 
use a combination of methods and technologies to identify 
vehicles, drivers, and carriers for intervention. Work is being 
done to update crash causation and reporting data to give 
jurisdictions better information on which to build their 
program.
    If we can better understand where, why, and how crashes are 
occurring, we can do more to prevent them. CVSA encourages 
Congress to provide DOT with the resources necessary to 
maintain the data set that will inform the next generation of 
safety programs. Specifically, CVSA supports funding an update 
to the crash causation study. In addition, it is important that 
regulations keep pace with the evolving motor carrier industry.
    For example, as we move to more and more advanced safety 
systems and CMVs, the enforcement community must have the 
resources to effectively regulate industry. CVSA has asked 
NHTSA to consider establishing a universal electronic 
identifier for all CMVs. The ability to electronically identify 
each truck from a short-range would revolutionize the roadside 
inspection program and improve roadway safety.
    Finally, as you draft transportation safety policy for the 
next decade, please consider how the enforcement community will 
implement those policies. Establishing new policies without 
considering the practical impact can lead to inconsistency and 
unnecessary tension between industry and enforcement. CVSA is 
asking Congress to incorporate an implementation window 
requirement in any future exemption. This will allow states 
time to receive guidance and train inspectors, leading to 
greater uniformity, which benefits both industry and 
enforcement.
    Thank you for including me in today's discussion. We, like 
our partners in industry and at DOT, are committed to saving 
lives. To reach that goal, it is important that everyone 
involved have the tools needed to do their part. For the 
states, that means program flexibility and funding to support 
comprehensive and innovative programs that take dangerous 
drivers, vehicles, and carriers off the roadway. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Samis follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Sergeant John Samis, Delaware State Police; and 
             President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Introduction
    Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's 
important discussion on ``Keep on Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives on 
Trucking in America.''
    My name is John Samis. I am a sergeant with the Delaware State 
Police, and I currently serve as president of the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance (CVSA). CVSA is a nonprofit association comprised of 
local, state, provincial, territorial and Federal commercial motor 
vehicle safety officials and industry representatives. We represent the 
state agencies responsible for the administration and enforcement of 
commercial motor carrier safety regulations in the United States 
(U.S.), Canada and Mexico. We work to improve commercial motor vehicle 
safety and uniformity by bringing truck and bus regulatory, safety and 
enforcement agencies together with industry representatives to solve 
highway transportation safety problems. Every state in the U.S., all 
Canadian provinces and territories, the country of Mexico, and all U.S. 
territories and possessions are members of CVSA.
    As Congress begins work on the next surface transportation bill, 
this timely hearing will hopefully provide members with valuable 
insight into the incredibly complex world of regulating the trucking 
industry to ensure safety, while also providing for the efficient flow 
of goods across the country. My testimony will provide a snapshot of 
the current state of commercial motor vehicle safety and enforcement 
initiatives, as well as outline our recommendations on how best to move 
forward to meet our shared goal of preventing crashes, injuries and 
fatalities related to commercial motor vehicles on our Nation's 
roadways.
Background
    CVSA represents the men and women responsible for removing 
dangerous vehicles, drivers and motor carriers from our roadways. 
Congress provides funding to the states through the Motor Carrier 
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) to support the states' commercial 
motor vehicle safety and enforcement programs. States use the funds to 
conduct inspection and enforcement activities, train enforcement 
personnel, purchase necessary equipment, update software and other 
technology, and conduct outreach and education campaigns to raise 
awareness and improve commercial motor vehicle safety issues. The funds 
are used, in part, to pay the salaries of more than 13,000 full and 
part time commercial motor vehicle safety professionals. These people 
conduct more than 3.5 million commercial motor vehicle roadside 
inspections, 64,000 new entrant safety audits and 6,000 compliance 
reviews each year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``2019 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.'' 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. January 2020. http://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/commercial-motor
-vehicle-facts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The states' work through MCSAP saves lives every day, keeping 
dangerous vehicles, and unqualified and unsafe drivers off the Nation's 
roads. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA), the agency regulates 560,809 motor carriers, 6.6 million 
commercial drivers and 12.2 million commercial motor vehicles.\2\ The 
state and local agencies that receive MCSAP funding are responsible for 
ensuring those motor carriers, vehicles and drivers operate safely. 
Furthermore, the commercial motor vehicle enforcement landscape is 
constantly evolving and changing as Congress and FMCSA work to refine 
and improve the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). As we 
look ahead to the future of the commercial motor vehicle industry, it 
is apparent that states will need every resource available to keep pace 
with an ever-growing and ever-changing industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``2019 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.'' 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. January 2020. http://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/commercial-motor
-vehicle-facts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAST Act, Where We Stand Today and How to Move Forward
    Significant progress for commercial motor vehicle safety was made 
in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. The 
bill included a major overhaul of and increased funding for MCSAP. In 
addition, the bill included a number of changes to the regulatory 
processes at FMCSA, directives to reduce redundancies and improve 
information systems, and a number of necessary studies on relevant 
commercial motor vehicle related issues. As a result, today we have 
more streamlined programs, are able to spend more of our time on 
implementing the programs, rather than reporting on them, and are 
working towards improved data collection and analysis.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Changes
    Perhaps the most significant provision within Title V of the FAST 
Act were the changes made to MCSAP. The bill completely rewrote 
Sections 31102, 31103, 31104 and 31313 of Title 49 of U.S. Code, which 
are the sections dealing with MCSAP, making a number of organizational 
and programmatic changes. The goal of the consolidation and 
reorganization was to reduce the administrative burden for both FMCSA 
and the states by reducing the number of grant programs and focusing 
the bulk of the program in the formula grant, which is more quickly 
administered and more stable than competitive grants. Fewer grant 
programs means fewer applications for the states to submit and report 
on and for FMCSA to review and administer, cutting down on unnecessary 
paperwork and streamlining the grant process. Though, of course, there 
is always room for improvement.
    CVSA strongly supported the changes to MCSAP implemented in the 
FAST Act. The changes, most of which were effective beginning in fiscal 
2017, have provided states with additional flexibility in how they 
spend their MCSAP grant funds, streamlined the grant application 
process, eliminated redundancies between overlapping programs and 
reduced the administrative burden on states, allowing them to spend 
more time doing the work of the program and less time on administrative 
activities. This flexibility is critical, giving states the ability to 
design a comprehensive commercial motor vehicle safety program that 
utilizes creative solutions to address issues unique to each state, 
while also meeting all program requirements.
    Meanwhile, as we approach the end of the FAST Act authorization 
cycle, FMCSA is working to finalize implementation of some of the 
bill's provisions. The FAST Act included a requirement that FMCSA 
convene a group to evaluate the current MCSAP allocation formula. The 
group was tasked with recommending a new formula that will better 
allocate MCSAP funds to where they are most needed. The group's 
recommendations were finalized in April of 2017 and a notice of 
proposed rulemaking outlining the new proposed structure was published 
last fall. Once complete, the new MCSAP formula will have a tremendous 
impact on the efficacy of the new MCSAP structure.
    We are hopeful that the final rule will be published early this 
year and work can begin on putting the new formula in place. FMCSA will 
need time to adjust their programs accordingly and states will need to 
be able to plan for any changes in funding levels based on the new 
formula. States are currently receiving funds based on an interim 
formula, which was intended to serve as a short-term place holder. As 
such, many jurisdictions are reluctant to make longer-term changes to 
their programs (such as expanding initiatives and hiring new staff) 
before they know what funding will look like in the future. As a 
result, innovative programs and technology deployments are being placed 
on hold.
    In addition, the agency is in the process of finalizing the move to 
a three-year cycle for the state's commercial vehicle safety plans. 
These plans document how the state has met their safety goals for the 
past year and how MCSAP funds for the coming fiscal year will be spent 
in order to meet target goals for enhancing safety. Moving to a three-
year cycle for the reporting will reduce the administrative burden on 
states and free up more time and resources for other priorities.
    The states and agency are both still adjusting and adapting to the 
new structure, processes and requirements, as well as waiting for the 
final few pieces to be put in place. However, overall, feedback to date 
has been largely positive. We'd like to thank this committee for their 
work in putting those changes in place. As we evaluate the outcome of 
the FAST Act changes and look towards the next highway bill, CVSA has 
identified a few small adjustments related to MCSAP funding that could 
be made to build on this progress. These recommendations are discussed 
in the following section.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Funding
    The commercial motor vehicle enforcement landscape is constantly 
evolving and changing as Congress and FMCSA work to refine and improve 
the FMCSRs, and industry advances. Despite these challenges, MCSAP, as 
administered by the states, has been successful in improving safety on 
our Nation's roadways, in spite of a steady increase in the number of 
commercial motor vehicles operating on those roads. New and expanded 
responsibilities mean improvements in safety, but only to the extent 
the states have the resources to effectively implement those policies. 
Recognizing this, Congress included in the FAST Act higher levels of 
funding for MCSAP and other commercial motor vehicle-related grants. 
I'd like to take a moment, on behalf of CVSA and its membership, to 
thank the Members of this Committee for recognizing that fact and for 
helping to ensure the higher funding levels in the FAST Act.
    While the states are appreciative of the higher funding levels, 
states experience an ongoing delay and lack of consistency in the 
timing of funding disbursement, which prevents many from being able to 
fully capitalize on the increases. In fiscal 2019, some grant funds 
under MCSAP were allocated to the states as late as September, just 
days before the end of the first year of the grant.
    There are a number of factors that contribute to these delays and 
result in complications for the states. Allocation of MCSAP funds are 
tied to the annual appropriations process, which, as you know, has 
become more delayed each year. If the process worked as it should, 
appropriations for the fiscal year would be finalized long before 
October 1 of each year and FMCSA would have time to run the formulas 
and award funds, in full, at the start of each fiscal year. Instead, 
continuing resolutions force the agency to disburse the funds in phases 
until a final bill is approved and the remaining funds can be released. 
The issue is further complicated by the fact that many states do not 
follow the Federal fiscal calendar (most start July 1), which impacts 
their reporting and tracking process. When funds do become available, 
the grant review and approval process takes too long, further delaying 
receipt of funds for safety programs. It can take weeks and sometimes 
months for the agency to get the necessary approvals to award the funds 
to the states. This unpredictable, piecemeal approach to funding makes 
planning and management of state programs difficult.
    Relying on the appropriations cycle to determine funding levels on 
a year-to-year basis does not allow the states to plan long-term. State 
agencies will be reluctant to fill positions, continue enforcement 
programs or engage in bold new initiatives if they cannot be confident 
that Federal funds will come in a timely manner, at the approved 
levels. These delays can also leave a state with too little time to 
spend the funds, once they are awarded. If states are unable to spend 
the funds in the grant period of performance, they are forced to 
deobligate the money, returning it to FMCSA. FMCSA, in turn, is 
required to return unspent funds at the end of each grant period of 
performance. Requiring FMCSA to return the funds to the treasury takes 
much needed funding away from critical safety programs and makes long 
term funding for states even more unreliable.
    To help address this issue, we are asking, first, that states be 
given an extra year to spend grant funds, to account for the delays 
that consume most of the first eligible year of the grant. In addition, 
we are asking that FMCSA be given the authority, like other agencies, 
to keep the unspent funds and reallocate them. This will provide states 
with more flexibility and stability, which in turn will result in 
stronger, more robust programs. Simply put, these are funds that 
Congress allocated to be spent on critical commercial motor vehicle 
safety programs. We should not let process and circumstances prevent 
those much-needed funds from being used by the states. Unspent funds 
should remain within MCSAP, for FMCSA to reallocate to states that can 
quickly and effectively spend the money. Finally, recognizing that 
future funding for MCSAP is directly tied to the long-term solvency of 
the Highway Trust Fund, CVSA supports ongoing efforts to identify 
sustainable, long-term revenue sources to address the Highway Trust 
Fund insolvency, in order to ensure stability for MCSAP, as well as 
other important safety-related programs.
Clarity in the Regulatory Framework
    Clear, enforceable rules are the cornerstone of an effective 
regulatory framework designed to ensure safety on our roadways. It is 
imperative that those subject to the FMCSRs understand their 
responsibilities and that those tasked with enforcing safety 
regulations can do so effectively to ensure the quality and uniformity 
of the more than four million roadside inspections conducted annually 
throughout North America. Over time, additional regulatory authority, 
coupled with changes to the industry and technological advancements can 
result in inconsistent, outdated and redundant regulatory language.
    Unfortunately, regulatory activity at the agency--one of FMCSA's 
basic responsibilities--has come to a near standstill, and the 
necessary work of maintaining and updating the regulations is 
suffering. High profile initiatives, such as implementation of the 
electronic logging device rule, can consume the agency's resources, 
especially when those efforts are met with a high volume of exemption 
requests. In an effort to address the growing backlog and delays, the 
agency has come to rely heavily on the use of regulatory guidance to 
address necessary clarifications to the regulations, using guidance 
documents or frequently asked questions (FAQs) to correct technical 
errors in published rules or to clarify vague regulatory language 
within the safety regulations while improvements to the regulations 
make their way through the rulemaking process. However, the number of 
full rulemakings that can make it through the agency in any given year 
is limited by staff and funding, and a number of higher profile rules 
tend to push simple technical changes back in the queue, some never to 
be published. As a result, a disconnect has evolved between written 
regulation, regulatory guidance, interpretations and FAQs.
    To help address these inconsistencies, the FAST Act required FMCSA 
to conduct a regular review of active guidance documents and routinely 
incorporate appropriate guidance into the regulations in a timely 
manner, a requirement that was supported by CVSA. This process, once 
complete, will help clarify a number of inconsistencies in regulation. 
This, in turn, will help improve the quality and uniformity of the more 
than four million roadside inspections conducted annually throughout 
North America.
    However, reforming the regulatory guidance process will only 
address a portion of the issue. The underlying regulations must be 
updated and maintained regularly, in order to keep pace with 
advancements in industry and safety. For example, as regulators 
evaluate the impacts of automated driving systems on interstate 
transportation, they should consider the effects of this technology on 
the enforcement community and provide clear, uniform and enforceable 
standards. It is imperative that the regulations be updated to account 
for driver-assisted and, eventually, driverless vehicles. These updates 
to the regulations need to be put in place now, so they are complete 
and well understood before wide-spread deployment of automated 
commercial motor vehicles are on our roadways. This does not 
necessarily mean NEW regulations; only that existing regulations must 
be adjusted to accommodate the future of the trucking industry.
    Likewise, a number of petitions from CVSA and other organizations 
calling for various technical corrections, updates and adjustments to 
the FMCSRs sit before the agency, unaddressed. There are a number of 
factors that contribute to the growing delay in regulatory action at 
FMCSA, and many of these factors are outside the agency's control. The 
result is that critical work maintaining the FMCSRs, something only the 
agency can do, is falling behind. CVSA strongly encourages Congress to 
ensure that FMCSA is given the resources needed to prioritize the day-
to-day maintenance of the regulations, meet obligations set forth by 
Congress and prepare for the future.
Exemptions
    Another challenge facing the enforcement community is inconsistency 
in the regulations caused by exceptions, exemptions and waivers. The 
Federal safety regulations help reduce or prevent truck and bus 
crashes, fatalities and injuries by establishing minimum credentialing 
and vehicle mechanical fitness requirements to ensure interstate motor 
carriers and drivers operate safely. The regulations are developed in 
consultation with enforcement, industry and subject matter experts, and 
are intended to establish a clear set of rules by which all motor 
carriers must abide. The states, in partnership with FMCSA, work to 
enforce those regulations consistently and correctly.
    In order to become a commercial motor vehicle inspector, an 
individual must go through rigorous training. Once certified, an 
inspector must conduct a minimum number of inspections each year to 
maintain their certification. Inspectors must also attend annual in-
service refresher training and are trained after every regulatory 
update or change. Significant training and continuing education ensure 
inspectors and roadside enforcement officials fully understand and 
effectively communicate the regulations they enforce.
    Clarity, consistency, uniformity and enforceability are the 
cornerstones of an effective regulatory framework. Confusion and 
inconsistencies create more work for the enforcement community and have 
the potential to frustrate the motor carrier industry. Inconsistencies 
and exceptions within the regulations require more training and create 
more opportunities for mistakes, which in turn require additional 
resources to correct. Unfortunately, however, the FAST Act included a 
number of legislative exemptions from the safety regulations. CVSA is 
generally opposed to the inclusion of exemptions in legislation. We 
recognize there may be instances when exemptions are appropriate and do 
not compromise safety; however, overall, CVSA believes exemptions have 
the potential to undermine safety and complicate enforcement. Every new 
exemption is an opportunity for confusion and inconsistency in 
enforcement, diverting scarce resources from other activities and 
undermining the program's effectiveness. While CVSA has no specific 
opposition to many of the exemptions on an individual basis, 
complications have already surfaced regarding their implementation.
    Problems begin with the adoption of exemptions. While the 
exemptions were made effective at the Federal level upon enactment of 
the bill, that is not necessarily the case at the state level. The 
states cannot enforce Federal laws and regulations, and instead adopt 
Federal regulatory policy into their own state law and code. Some 
states adopt Federal rules by reference, allowing them to automatically 
adopt Federal changes immediately. However, many states do not adopt by 
reference and must go through either a legislative or regulatory 
process to make the Federal regulatory changes effective at the state 
level. This process takes time, especially in states where the 
legislature does not meet annually.
    Even in states where adoption is automatic by reference, there is 
still a delay in the practical implementation of an exemption. 
Jurisdictions must be made aware of the change and its impacts. In many 
cases, interpretations and guidance from the related Federal agency on 
the parameters and definitions of the exemption are necessary. For 
example, a number of the exemptions to commercial motor vehicle size 
and weight limits included in the FAST Act required guidance from the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA worked quickly to provide 
the guidance to the states, but even so, the document was not 
circulated until February of 2016, which left industry and the 
enforcement community wondering how the exemptions would work in the 
meantime and, at times, creating conflicts during roadside inspections.
    Finally, once the exemption has been analyzed and guidance 
provided, state enforcement personnel must be trained on the new 
exemptions. Inspectors must be taken away from important enforcement 
and education efforts and brought into the classroom to be trained on 
the changes. Practically speaking, this takes time. This guidance and 
the subsequent training are critical to ensuring the exemption is 
interpreted and enforced uniformly.
    Recognizing these challenges, FMCSA has a policy in place that 
allows states three years to adopt changes to the FMCSRs. While states 
work hard to adopt the changes as quickly as possible, the three-year 
window allows enough time for the states to go through their process 
and for inspectors to be properly trained. Moving forward, CVSA 
encourages Congress to consider including an 18-month implementation 
window or some other mechanism that allows other Federal agencies 
enough time to provide any necessary guidance on the exemption and the 
states enough time to adopt the changes and train inspectors and 
enforcement personnel. We understand the exemptions are intended to 
relieve industry of a certain regulatory responsibility, but if the 
exemption cannot be implemented correctly and consistently, industry 
and the enforcement community both suffer. CVSA looks forward to 
working with Congress and our partners in the motor carrier industry to 
identify a solution to this issue that meets the industry's needs while 
also allowing for clear, uniform application and enforcement of the 
regulations.
Hours-of-Service
General
    One area of the regulations that presents a significant challenge 
for the enforcement community is the hours-of-service requirements. 
Recently, and motivated partially by the electronic logging device 
requirement, there has been a lot of discussion about the need for 
additional `flexibility' in the hours-of-service rules. CVSA does not 
have expertise in fatigue data and will not weigh in on all the 
proposed changes being discussed. However, it should be noted that the 
Federal hours-of-service requirements exist to help prevent and manage 
driver fatigue. While sleep cannot be regulated, the hours-of-service 
rules set forth a framework that, if followed, allow drivers to get the 
rest necessary to operate their vehicles safely. It is important that 
the hours-of-service requirements continue to focus on fatigue 
management and safety, factoring in the best available fatigue data. 
Recognizing that the motor carrier industry is diverse, it is critical 
that the regulations account for significant variances within segments 
of the industry, while keeping exemptions to a minimum, in order to 
ensure uniform enforcement.
Agricultural Commodities
    Currently, consideration is being given to whether or not the 
agricultural industry should be given additional flexibility within the 
hours-of-service regulations. CVSA has concerns with several of the 
proposals being discussed, as for many of them `flexibility' translates 
to additional on-duty and driving time. Additional driving and on-duty 
time will expose drivers to a greater risk of fatigue, putting 
themselves and the public at risk. Operators in the agricultural 
industry already have a number of exemptions in place today that allow 
them to drive well past the current limits. The hours-of-service 
framework exists to prevent exactly this type of excessive driving that 
causes fatigue.
    Some in the industry point to a low level of annual crashes as 
justification for the additional driving time. However, this argument 
fails to recognize that the relatively low level of crashes is likely 
due, in part, to the fatigue management of the very hours-of-service 
framework they are seeking relief from. Further, the data used fails to 
account for the safety impacts of recent changes made by FMCSA to the 
150-air-mile agricultural commodity exemption. The guidance on the 150-
air-mile agricultural commodity exemption that was issued in May 2018 
changed how on-duty and driving time is recorded once a driver leaves 
the 150 air-mile radius. Prior to the change, if a driver left the 150 
air-mile radius, they had to record all driving and on-duty time that 
occurred within the 150 air-mile radius. Under the new guidance, all 
on-duty activities and driving that occur within the 150 air-mile 
radius is recorded as off-duty time, even if the driver leaves the 150 
air-mile radius. So, in theory, a driver could be on-duty and/or drive 
within the 150 air-mile radius for 8 hours, leave it and only then 
start their clock. For agricultural carriers, this change significantly 
increases the amount of time they are able to work and drive, exposing 
them to increased risk of fatigue. This significant change and the 
subsequent impacts on crash rates have not been evaluated. Further 
expanding the distance of the current air-mile radius exemption or 
expanding the workday in general at this point will only result in more 
tired drivers.
    CVSA also supports requiring that the agricultural community now be 
required to install electronic logging devices. They have been exempted 
from the requirement, as they argued the mandate would have a 
disproportionate impact on their industry, due to the rigid nature of 
the hours-of-service rules. Given that FMCSA has provided additional 
flexibility within the rules themselves, we believe it's time for this 
sector of the industry to adopt electronic logging devices.
    We recognize the nature of the commodities they are hauling--they 
are live animals and/or perishable products. The enforcement community 
is not seeking to penalize the agricultural community or hurt their 
business. We live in these communities. These are our neighbors, 
friends and relatives. We recognize that complying with safety 
regulations can make business more difficult and require adjustments 
and additional expense. But fatigue does not vary based on what a 
driver is hauling and compliance with the safety regulations is part of 
the requirements to operate in commerce.
Personal Conveyance
    Another hours-of-service issue that is related to the regulatory 
guidance matter discussed above is the ``personal conveyance'' 
designation under the hours-of-service rules. In June of 2018, FMCSA 
published new guidance providing a new interpretation of how to apply 
and use the ``personal conveyance'' designation. To be able to log 
personal conveyance time as off-duty, commercial motor vehicle drivers 
must meet several conditions as outlined in the regulatory guidance. 
These include being relieved of all on-duty activities and 
responsibilities and ensuring that the off-duty trip is personal in 
nature. While these conditions present certain parameters to drivers 
and enforcement, the guidance it offers is incomplete because it does 
not provide a maximum distance and/or time that a driver can travel 
under the ``personal conveyance'' designation.
    Under the revised guidance, a driver could, in theory, drive 
hundreds of miles over the course of several hours all under the 
designation of ``personal conveyance.'' This presents the opportunity 
for increased driver fatigue and risk on our roadways, as drivers may 
decide to travel hundreds of miles in order to strategically relocate 
to an alternate location after driving a full day. When combined with 
the ability to operate under personal conveyance while laden, this new 
guidance also provides an opportunity for drivers to abuse personal 
conveyance time in order to circumvent the hours-of-service 
regulations. Further, the allowance of laden vehicles for personal 
conveyance use makes it much more difficult for a roadside inspector to 
determine the intent of a driver at the time of inspection. Inspectors 
are consistently seeing blatant abuse of this designation and we have 
heard feedback from drivers and motor carriers who indicate they are 
receiving pressure from shippers to use the designation incorrectly in 
order to deliver loads faster.
    CVSA has petitioned the agency to provide a clear, set distance 
that is permissible under the personal conveyance designation. In 
setting clear guidelines on the use of personal conveyance, CVSA 
recommended that FMCSA look to the standard set in Canada, which allows 
drivers to use a vehicle for personal conveyance purposes for a maximum 
of 75 km per day (approximately 46 miles), unladen. While 46 miles may 
not be the appropriate distance here in the U.S., it demonstrates that 
setting a fixed distance is feasible. FMCSA should set a quantifiable 
distance that drivers are allowed to log as personal conveyance.
Data Quality
    Uniform, timely and accurate data is the cornerstone of the Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program. Enforcement personnel, along with 
state and Federal agencies, use information on a motor carrier's past 
performance to help prioritize motor carriers for roadside inspections 
and compliance reviews. Performance data from the commercial motor 
vehicle industry is used to identify trends and problem areas, and to 
craft enforcement and education initiatives to target specific safety 
problems. Data is not only used to evaluate whether or not enforcement 
is being conducted uniformly, but also to determine whether or not a 
particular safety program or concept is successful. Data is used to 
determine whether enforcement funds are being used in the most 
efficient, effective manner possible. In order to effectively and 
efficiently perform these activities, the states and the Federal 
government must be able to rely on the data being compiled in the 
various systems being accurate and as uniform as possible, in order to 
make comparisons.
    As technology and data collection continues to advance and improve, 
our state programs will only grow in their reliance on data. Congress 
recognized this fact and included a number of provisions in the FAST 
Act having to do with improving FMCSA's information technology (IT) 
systems and data quality. Section 5504 of the bill directed the 
Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive analysis of FMCSA's IT 
and data collection and management systems and to make recommendations 
on how to improve both the functionality of the systems and the quality 
of the data collection and analysis. In addition, Section 5224 directed 
FMCSA to implement certain hardcoding and smart logic standards within 
the inspection software, in order to improve the data quality coming 
from inspection reports.
    CVSA is following the implementation of both requirements closely 
and looks forward to working with the agency as they move forward. 
Finally, many within the transportation industry recognize that the we 
need better data on crashes. FMCSA has begun gathering information on 
the costs and parameters associated with updating the agency's crash 
causation study. If completed, this study would give jurisdictions 
better information on which to build their programs. If we can better 
understand where, why and how crashes are occurring, we can do more to 
prevent them. CVSA encourages Congress to provide DOT the resources to 
maintain the data sets that will inform the next generation of safety 
programs. Specifically, CVSA supports funding an update to the crash 
causation study.
Safety Technology
General
    As budgets continue to tighten and technology continues to advance, 
it is imperative that those in the safety and enforcement communities 
take full advantage of technological advancements that improve safety 
and demonstrate a net benefit to society. CVSA supports legislation and 
policies that encourage the deployment of safety technologies proven, 
through independent research, to improve commercial motor vehicle 
safety, either through preventing crashes or mitigating the severity of 
crashes. CVSA also supports giving states the flexibility to deploy 
technology that helps support effective enforcement programs.
Universal Electronic Vehicle Identifier
    Given the growing size and complexity of the trucking industry, 
jurisdictions do not have the resources necessary to inspect every 
vehicle, driver and motor carrier operating on our roadways on a 
regular basis. In order to maximize resources, jurisdictions use a 
combination of methods to identify vehicles, drivers and motor carriers 
for intervention and enforcement. As a result, inspectors interact with 
only a small fraction of the commercial motor vehicles currently 
operating on our roadways. However, technologies exist today that would 
allow enforcement to identify nearly all commercial motor vehicles 
electronically, while those vehicles are in motion. If this concept 
were universally deployed, it would revolutionize the way commercial 
motor vehicle roadside monitoring, inspection and enforcement are 
conducted.
    Requiring a universal electronic vehicle identifier on all 
commercial motor vehicles would, in time, eliminate the need to stop a 
commercial motor vehicle to review driver information and inspect the 
vehicle, improving efficiencies for the enforcement community and the 
motor carrier industry. It would improve the effectiveness of 
enforcement programs while reducing costs, for both enforcement and 
industry, all while improving safety. CVSA has petitioned the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and FMCSA to issue an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to explore the feasibility of 
requiring all commercial motor vehicles be equipped with technology 
that allows them to be identified electronically by enforcement. 
Deployment of this technology would revolutionize the way commercial 
motor vehicle roadside inspection and enforcement are conducted, 
exponentially growing the program and improving roadway safety.
    While many questions still exist surrounding this concept, 
establishing a universal electronic vehicle identifier requirement for 
all commercial motor vehicles will have tremendous benefit. 
Jurisdictions will save time and see improved efficiencies as 
inspectors are able to more accurately identify vehicles, drivers and 
motor carriers in need of an intervention while allowing safe, 
compliant vehicles and drivers to deliver their freight more quickly 
and efficiently. Most importantly, establishing a universal electronic 
vehicle identifier requirement for all commercial motor vehicles would 
benefit the public by improving safety, helping to take unsafe 
vehicles, drivers and motor carriers off the roadways. As industry 
continues to grow and more people take to the roads, it is imperative 
that we leverage technology where possible to improve the efficacy of 
our enforcement programs.
    Further, the need for a universal electronic vehicle identifier 
becomes more critical as the industry moves forward to implement driver 
assistive truck platooning, increasingly advanced driver assistance 
systems, and partially or fully automated driving systems, which will 
require new methods and levels of safety checks. As driver assistive 
technologies evolve in commercial motor vehicle use, the proper 
identification and monitoring of these commercial motor vehicles 
becomes increasingly necessary. No matter the method, this proposed 
requirement would enable efficient identification and inspection/
screening of vehicle systems to help ensure safe operation of 
commercial motor vehicles, including those being operated with or 
without a human operator on board. CVSA encourages Congress to direct 
NHTSA to initiate the rulemaking so this important discussion can 
begin.
Automated Driving Systems
    Finally, much of the discussion on safety technology in the 
transportation arena currently revolves around the deployment of 
commercial motor vehicles equipped with various levels of automation. 
As the industry moves ahead with deployment of automated driving system 
technology and other technologies and as Congress and the 
administration consider mandating certain systems, it is important that 
consideration be given to the practical aspects roadside. It is 
imperative that Federal agencies and lawmakers keep pace with technical 
developments by consulting with industry and the enforcement community 
to determine the necessary guidelines for safe operation on public 
roadways.
    In particular, a dialog with the enforcement community is needed on 
the requirements and capabilities of this technology to self-monitor 
vehicle systems' safety status and interact with law enforcement. Each 
new requirement in the regulations will come with a corresponding item 
on the roadside inspector's checklist. If a vehicle is required to have 
a particular component or piece of technology, thought must be given to 
how the enforcement community will effectively inspect the component or 
function, and in the pursuit of maintaining safety on our public 
roadways, ensure compliance with that requirement. Regulations should 
be clearly written and enforceable. With appropriate Federal standards 
in place, these technologies have great potential to increase roadway 
safety.
5.9 GHz Spectrum Band
    CVSA is following with interest the ongoing discussion regarding 
the possible release of a portion of the 5.9 GHz Spectrum Band. CVSA, 
along with many other organizations in the transportation safety realm, 
have grave concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commission's 
proposal to reallocate the majority of the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed 
devices. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which has also 
weighed in against the move, has research that indicates this proposal 
would also likely cause significant interference with vehicle to 
everything (V2X) technologies operating in the remaining spectrum, 
which could render the spectrum useless for transportation safety. We 
are on the cusp of the next revolution in transportation, with 
potential for real safety benefits from connected and smarter vehicles, 
along with more sophisticated and effective enforcement tools. It is 
critical that this portion of the spectrum remain dedicated to life 
saving safety technology.
Under 21-Year Old Drivers
    As freight volumes continue to increase, some of our industry 
partners struggle to find qualified drivers to fill vacancies. As a 
result, discussions are occurring around the idea of allowing 18 to 20-
year old drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles interstate. Last 
year, FMCSA issued a notice requesting comment on how the agency might 
structure a pilot program to explore the impacts of this change. CVSA 
filed comments, noting that there is value in conducting such a pilot 
program to assess the impacts of allowing younger drivers to operate in 
interstate commerce. However, careful consideration to the program's 
structure is necessary to ensure the outcome provides relevant data on 
which to make future policy determinations.
    In the notice, FMCSA proposed including a number of safety 
technology requirements in the pilot program. CVSA has long been a 
strong proponent of policies that will help deploy proven safety 
technologies. It is critical that FMCSA conduct a pilot program that 
will provide reliable, accurate data on which to base future policy 
determinations. If the agency includes safety technologies in the 
pilot, the results will likely be skewed, as participants will perform 
better as a result of the safety technology. The program results would 
not be reflective of the actual commercial motor vehicle driving fleet 
and would not serve as a sound basis for future policy decisions. 
Consideration must be given to how the program is implemented, ensuring 
the pilot is reflective of how any future program would work. So, if 
additional safety technologies are required and, based on that 
structure, the agency determines that allowing younger drivers to 
operate in interstate commerce is a safe and prudent decision, those 
same technologies should be required for all younger drivers to operate 
going forward. Similarly, if the agency places additional restrictions 
on the motor carriers or drivers themselves, those same requirements 
should be part of any permanent program that is put into place.
    It has been suggested that before younger drivers are allowed to 
operate interstate, FMCSA should examine data on intrastate driver 
performance, as drivers under the age of 21 are allowed to operate 
intrastate in every state in the country. While this data may prove to 
be informative, it is critical that it be considered under the right 
context. Intrastate movements by drivers under 21 years of age are not 
likely comparable to long haul commercial motor vehicle loads. Many of 
these intrastate trips are short haul, with drivers returning home 
every night. In addition, in many cases, these moves will take place 
either in extremely rural areas or in densely populated urban centers, 
both of which come with a unique set of challenges and exposure 
considerations. This does not mean that the data cannot be reviewed and 
incorporated, only that any conclusions being drawn from such data take 
into consideration and account for these factors. Finally, like many 
others, CVSA supports prohibiting these younger drivers from 
transporting passengers or hazardous materials, as a crash involving 
either poses a more significant risk than general cargo.
Detention Time
    Drivers continue to face challenges at pickup and delivery 
locations, resulting in delays that impact their hours of service and 
productivity. The FAST Act included a provision calling for DOT to 
study the issue of driver detention time. This a well-documented 
challenge, with clear impacts on motor carrier safety, particularly 
with regards to fatigue management. CVSA encourages Congress to work 
with stakeholders to address the ongoing issue with driver detention 
time.
Truck Parking
    Related is the ongoing challenge of providing commercial motor 
vehicle drivers with adequate, safe parking facilities, strategically 
placed throughout the U.S. This is a critical commercial motor vehicle 
safety issue. Parking facilities need to be available to drivers who 
are trying to comply with hours-of-service requirements, as well as 
those who are fatigued. Without adequate parking facilities, drivers 
are faced with either driving over hours or parking in an unsafe 
location. CVSA supports investments that address the Nation's truck 
parking shortage.
Conclusion
    The FAST Act included a number of changes that will have a positive 
impact on the Nation's roadway safety and work has been completed or is 
currently underway to implement a majority of those requirements. 
However, there is more work to be done, as recent traffic fatality data 
reflects an upward trend in crashes and fatalities involving commercial 
motor vehicles. As this committee considers the state of the trucking 
industry and begins development of the next surface transportation 
bill, we encourage you to give strong consideration to the role the 
enforcement community will play in any policy changes or new programs, 
and to ensure that the states and FMCSA are given the resources and 
flexibility to maintain their core programs while also building upon 
them and keeping pace with industry. As the state agencies responsible 
for commercial motor vehicle enforcement, we look forward to working 
with the Members of this Committee, FMCSA, our industry partners and 
other stakeholders to continue working towards our shared goal of 
preventing deaths, injuries and crashes on the Nation's roadways. We 
are committed to meeting our mission.

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Sergeant. And thank you to all 
the panel members for your opening statements. I would like to 
begin my questions with Mr. Spear and Mr. Pugh. I share many of 
the sentiments that both of you expressed regarding the need 
for more flexible hours of service requirements across the 
trucking industry.
    I also appreciate the efforts that we have seen from the 
FMCSA to update those requirements. Could each of you briefly 
explain what you see as the key change that is going to be 
needed in the hours of service requirements to help provide 
truckers with the flexibility they need while also making sure 
that we don't see any kind of negative impact on safety.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, I think one of the key facts is--one of the 
things that was petitioned for was the 3-hour, be able to 
extend your clock by 3 hours as far as if you would need to 
take a nap, traffic, something to that effect. But with that 
being said, there needs to be the added protection for the 
driver to where the driver has control of that time and not a 
motor carrier, not a shipper, or not a receiver, or anything of 
that effect.
    If the driver feels that he needs to take a nap or there is 
unsafe conditions, weather conditions or whatever, he has that 
opportunity to do it but not before us to do it, again, by a 
carrier or someone like that. With that being said, that is 
where the current version comes in. FMCSA has the hotline and 
that is the one thing we have been asking for is for FMCSA to 
be a little stricter on that. At OOIDA, we never hear anything 
coming back from any of the complaints that are being filed by 
us for our members. So that is the one main concern. Put the 
power in the driver's hands. Give him that added extra 
flexibility.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Spear.
    Mr. Spear. Yes, Chair. I want to be quick to point out that 
this is a live rulemaking. It is one that we do believe is 
necessary, but we haven't seen the final product yet. So I 
don't want to prejudge it. In the advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking, we see the four parts that the Department has 
proposed looking at. We are encouraged that it is moving in the 
right direction. They have taken all the comments, and it was 
voluminous, back, digested it and we believe, you know, this 
year we will see a final product.
    Without seeing the results of those comments yet, it has 
been a bit difficult to predict what it is going to say, but I 
do think it needs to reflect the realities that are happening 
out on the road. The flexibility that the industry and the 
drivers need, we share that concern. Adverse driving 
conditions, when a driver can take the 30 minute break when 
they are tired, not when the Government tells them they are 
tired, split sleeper berth.
    Common sense really needs to prevail here. The rule really 
needs to reflect reality, not something that is designed from a 
set of cubicles here in Washington, D.C. So we are optimistic 
that this rule will do that. I like the fact that they took 
such time and attention to all the comments across the 
spectrum. Once we see the final product, it will be something I 
think we can comment more on in detail.
    Senator Fischer. OK. I assume your Association made 
comments?
    Mr. Spear. Yes, definitely.
    Senator Fischer. And were those the points that you made, 
that you had in your testimony?
    Mr. Spear. Indeed, yes.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Parnell, you mentioned in 
your testimony that livestock haulers must receive additional 
transport training. Specifically, you mentioned the Transport 
Quality Assurance Program for the pork industry and the Master 
Cattle Transporter Program for the beef industry. Can you 
elaborate on the training that these programs provide, 
particularly as it would help with truck safety.
    Mr. Parnell. I can't--you know these programs that have 
been developed through the beef quality assurance program with 
NCBA and the couple of other programs that you highlighted, it 
takes it from step one all the way through the transportation. 
So it starts with the, you know, many times truckers are 
involved in the loading of their actual freight, the live 
animals on the truck.
    Talks about the handling of the, the handling of the 
animals once they get on the roadway, the need to drive 
probably slower because a lot of what we do is in, you know, 
very rural conditions and not always paved roads. It talks 
about there are parts of the program that teach them about 
judging their own fatigue and how to handle that, and the 
proper times, and again it goes back to some flexibility. When 
they need to have a chance to pull over and take a nap.
    Senator Fischer. Can you specifically address the 
flexibility that would be needed when you are hauling 
livestock. For example, if there is a rule that says you have 
to pull over at a certain time, what does that involve? Do you 
have to unload?
    Mr. Parnell. Well, yes, to do it the correct way, safely 
for the animals, you would have to pull over either--unload 
those animals at a facility that can handle those animals.
    Senator Fischer. And how many of those facilities do you 
usually run across as you are transporting across country?
    Mr. Parnell. Close to highway, there is not very many. It 
is a very challenging part.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. I would like to recognize 
Senator Duckworth.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairwoman Fisher. And 
Illinois is one of the Nation's largest pork producers so I am 
very sympathetic to the challenges, but I do want to start off 
by talking about the 5.9-gigahertz spectrum.
    In response to my question last week about DOT's First 
Responder Safety Technology Pilot Program Under Secretary 
Szabat stated that this new program is designed to demonstrate 
the benefits of V2X technologies for emergency response 
vehicles using the 5.9-gigahertz safety band.
    In December, the Federal Communications Commission released 
a proposal to reallocate more than half of this 5.9-gigahertz 
band to unlicensed operations like Wi-Fi. And Mr. Spare, you 
touched on this.
    In the interest of time though, by a quick show of hands. 
Who here has concerns with the recent actions taken by the FCC 
to reallocate the 5.9 gigahertz band?
    [Raised hands.]
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. With a quick yes or no, those 
who raised your hands, do you oppose FCC's proposal?
    Mr. Samis. Yes.
    Mr. Spear. Yes.
    Senator Duckworth. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    Senator Duckworth. OK, thank you. Sergeant Samis, thank you 
for your service protecting us, not just Delaware's roadways, 
but I am sure you extend beyond the state as well. One of my 
priorities is working to reduce and eliminate law enforcement 
fatalities from roadside accidents. Last year, Chairman Fischer 
and I asked a Government Accountability Office to review State 
level move over laws.
    Our Subcommittee is seeking to better understand how these 
policies are working and to examine opportunities for the 
Federal Government to enhance these State initiatives. In 
addition, Senator Durbin and I recently introduced the 
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act to promote the 
development and use of safety technologies that reduce accident 
risk for those who need to stop along busy highways.
    Your testimony mentioned the benefits of deploying 
universal electronic vehicle identifiers for commercial 
vehicles. Could you please address how these identifiers could 
improve public safety? And what do you say to stakeholders who 
raise privacy concerns?
    Mr. Samis. First of all, thank you for your work to help 
protect my brothers and sisters in law enforcement. That is 
greatly appreciated. To your question, given the size of the 
motor carrier industry, jurisdictions do not have the resources 
necessary to inspect every vehicle out there on the roadway, 
obviously. To maximize the resources, states must prioritize 
enforcement activities and utilize technology to continue to 
increase efficiency.
    With the universal electronic vehicle identifier, it would 
help us identify which trucks or carriers might be more likely 
to have issues, and then we can concentrate our efforts on 
those carriers.
    As far as the privacy concerns go, the universal electronic 
vehicle identifier would not transmit any data other than a 
specific truck is going down the roadway and then we would take 
that specific truck's identifier and run it through the systems 
that we are already currently using to identify the carrier and 
their safety record. So, privacy does not seem to be a concern 
to CVSA.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And I want to commend 
Chairman Fischer and others for their efforts to expand career 
opportunities for service members and veterans. We should do 
more to break down barriers for those who have served our 
Nation. However, I am wary of claims about workforce shortages 
in the transportation sector or any sector when there hasn't 
been a meaningful increase in wages.
    After all, increasing wages is the free market's response 
to labor shortages, relaxing safety standards is not. And that 
has been my concern with the push by some aviation stakeholders 
to weaken pilot training standards put in place after the 
tragic crash of Colgan flight 33407. So instead of increasing 
wages, they want to allow pilots to fly with less hours of 
training.
    FMCSA is developing a pilot program to understand the 
safety impacts of allowing 18 to 20 year old drivers to operate 
large trucks for the purpose of interstate commerce. Ms. King, 
what data is available or unavailable that could inform 
Congress about the safety of proposals to expand trucking to 
those with the least amount of experience?
    Ms. King. Well, like what has already been said, there are 
at least 48 states that allow 18-year-olds to drive semi-trucks 
within their state boundaries. So, there is data available 
already on what the crash levels are for younger drivers, and 
we believe that FMCSA and DOT should be studying that data 
before they just extend this offering to 18-year-olds to drive 
interstate.
    We also believe that these young people would be the new 
hires and they are not likely to get the comfortable job where 
they get to drive the 10-mile route back and forth and they are 
home every night with their family. Nobody who is in their 
first job gets the best routes, and so we are concerned that 
the younger drivers will end up on the longer routes that will 
take them into states they are not familiar with. So we really 
believe that the crash data that is within the states needs to 
be studied first.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And I would like to give Mr. 
Pugh a chance to talk a little bit about young, especially 
military drivers because having had a--by the way, I am a 
military driver license myself. I know the quality of the young 
drivers, especially those coming out the military who can be 
just as capable. Would you like to address that?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes. I will be more than happy to. I would agree 
that the 18 to 20 year olds, we don't feel that they are safe. 
As someone who had a CDL, drove a truck at a farm and got my 
CDL through the service, I would agree that I learned the 
skills on how to operate a truck and maneuver a truck very well 
in the United States Army and I am thankful for that.
    But I still think there is further training it needs to be 
issued because driving a truck and military life, as I am sure 
you are well aware, is much, much different from driving trucks 
in civilian life. You were usually in convoy, you were 
usually--had people overseeing where you were going you were 
going. You were usually on designated routes and you weren't 
just turned loose.
    When I turned 21 and went to work as a civilian trucker, I 
was just turned loose. And again, I was fortunate to have been 
trained with the skill, but as far as the knowledge in the real 
world, the knowledge of what is out there, I was lucky I didn't 
have any accidents or anything happen. But that is real world 
knowledge that would have been nice to add a little more 
training on before I was just turned loose.
    I would like to follow up too with, hiring these younger 
drivers, who is going to hire them? Because who is going to 
insure them? Because that was one of the biggest problems, I 
had at 21 years old stepping out of the United States Army with 
a CDL. I only found two motor carriers at the time that would 
give me a job. And as Ms. King said, it wasn't a very good job. 
Then at 22, I bought my own truck and then I struggled with 
finding carriers that would lease me because of my age and my 
lack of experience even though I owned the truck and trailer.
    And I was fortunate enough to find opportunities, but I was 
25 years old until the doors pretty much opened for me to drive 
for anybody or everybody. And I understand why because it is 
dangerous. I needed those years to learn and train because 
there was and is no training. We need more training out there.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am way over time. Mr. 
Spear, if you could submit a response via written format, I 
would really appreciate that.
    Mr. Spear. More than happy.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairwoman. You are very 
generous.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
    Senator Lee.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for all 
being here and for your insight today. Mr. Parnell, I would 
like to start with you. In your written testimony, you have 
pointed out some of the unintended consequences of strict hours 
of service rules. These are rules that are certainly well 
intentioned, and they are also rules that sometimes being the 
one-size-fits-all tools that they are, can put some undue and 
impractical consequences on all commercial drivers.
    And sometimes they don't necessarily yield the benefit that 
we want. Sometimes, for example, they can actually cause and 
increase harm by encouraging drivers to stop in places where 
they shouldn't be stopping or where it is not safe for them to 
stop along the side of the road on an interstate highway, for 
example, in order to comply with an overly rigid regulatory 
structure. That can cause safety problem.
    And this is of course, setting aside the issue that Senator 
Fischer mentioned a moment ago of the harm and the stress that 
can come from doing that when you are dealing with livestock or 
when you are dealing with insects like bees, that can cause 
some very significant problem. As Congress considers updating 
its hours of service requirements, where do you see the biggest 
need for reform across all commercial operations?
    Mr. Parnell. Excuse me, as it relates directly to 
agriculture and like we talked about, the part I am most 
familiar with, which is hauling livestock, we are just very 
unique. We are hauling a perishable product, a product that can 
be injured.
    And the flexibility--I know there has been numerous options 
or different, you know, legislative answers that have been put 
out there in the last Congress, some have been reintroduced 
this Congress, and LMA and NCBA, we petitioned FMCSA for a 
five-year test project that they have not given a public 
decision on yet. I think it has been out for comment. We 
introduced it 18 months ago. Twelve months ago, they introduced 
it to comment, and we haven't really heard back about that yet.
    That increased some hours of service, drive time, and 
flexibility a little bit. There are specific solutions. You 
know, for me, and you talked about not having the safest place 
to pull over, not the safest place to drive fatigued--we talked 
about regulation 49 CFR 39.1, which is the Ag commodity 
exemption. We have talked about that exemption on the end of 
hauls.
    So as they get close to where they are going, if the roads, 
if it is dark and they are on narrow roads, tough roads, they 
can just pull over and have that flexibility to get to the part 
of their destination very safe.
    Senator Lee. It also appears that there is some ambiguity 
within the hours of service regulations as to what constitutes 
on-duty versus off-duty time. And it appears that even rest 
stops, even rest breaks can still be considered a count against 
the 14-hour clock. How might Congress provide better 
definitions, to better clarify those definitions? Do you think 
that is something we should clarify?
    Mr. Parnell. I think it is something that needs to be 
clarified and especially in our industry because there are 
various times when we asked our specialized haulers to stop and 
check their loads and make sure everything is safe, and they 
are still on the clock during that 10 or 15 minute time working 
against them.
    Well, to me whose livelihood is dependent on that livestock 
traveling safely, I want them to check, but because it also 
affects my livelihood, the increased price that would take. If 
we had to switch trucks or do other things with the hours of 
service--I also want them to be able to make it there safely 
and on time. So yes, I do think we need to do that.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Spear, at the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute has estimated that Federal regulations, while this is 
impossible to quantify with precision, but they have estimated 
that in 2016, compliance with Federal regulations cost the 
American economy just under $2 trillion a year just in that 
year alone.
    Within Federal infrastructure projects, this ends up 
costing not only consumers but it also ends up costing drivers, 
moms and dads trying to get home just to be with their kids who 
were stuck in traffic, and it also costs State Governments 
additional money to comply with Federal regulations. There are 
many estimates that put it at about 20 percent.
    When you are using Federal funds, the Federal regulations 
you have to comply with often increase the cost of that Federal 
project by about 20 percent as compared to what it would be if 
you were using State funds. There are instances that I have 
heard of where it can be more like 30 or 40 percent in 
particular projects.
    So, this means that Federal dollars are sometimes being 
used to fund a project that is unable to go as far as it would 
otherwise. You know, sometimes regulations are necessary but 
not all regulations are unnecessary and they create harmful 
barriers to innovation and competition that end up harming 
consumers, drivers, commercial and otherwise.
    What do you think of the greatest regulatory costs in your 
industry, and what challenges--what are some of the challenges 
that you face that you consider necessary to address?
    Mr. Spear. I think ,simply put infrastructure is safety. 
And we need to look at it through that lens. We talk about 
regulations, we talk about infrastructure, but they really are 
synonymous. They are the same. Because if you have good 
infrastructure, you have less traffic, you have less accidents, 
you have more space in between the vehicles to do the things 
they need to do. You also have obviously lower cost and impact 
not just on the industry, but the economy.
    So, infrastructure, having more of it, and well designed, 
well engineered, really breeds good safety policy. In terms of 
the regulatory side, we are not fearful of regulation. What we 
do ask for is clear and concise regulation. When you have 
ambiguity, you have litigation, and that adds costs on our 
industry--horrendous cost.
    So the balance between that and maintaining good safety 
regulations that have a true and measurable impact, we 
recommend supporting that. What we do think though is that 
having expanded safety policy apply to infrastructure would be 
a good thing. We lose $70 billion a year as an industry sitting 
in traffic, and we are only 4 percent of the vehicles on the 
road. That is, as I said earlier, over 425,000 drivers sitting 
idle for an entire year.
    In terms of the environmental impact, think about this for 
a minute. Environmentalist don't want to speed up the 
permitting process. I cannot possibly understand why because if 
you have more efficient infrastructure, you have less 
congestion. That is 67 million tons of CO2 being 
emitted just sitting in traffic. If those trucks are moving, 
they are not going to emit like that.
    One modern truck today off the lot emits the same amount of 
diesel particulate matter as 60 trucks in 1988. We are doing 
all the right things. We are buying the newer, safer, more 
energy and environmentally friendly equipment but without 
infrastructure, you are going to have bad environmental policy, 
bad safety policy.
    So they are all connected in one another. And the cost of 
all that, the impact on the industry and the economy goes down, 
the more you invest in it.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    Senator Young.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Madam Chair and Ranking Member, thank so 
much for holding this important hearing. Our employment is 
reaching historic lows and national investment climate remains 
incredibly strong. And we have this substantial driver shortage 
in this country. And progressively, this threatens the long-
term economic stability of our country. We want to maintain 
this longest period of economic expansion in American history.
    Back home in Indiana, we like to call the crossroads of 
America, and I have heard from countless constituents, both 
drivers, other workers, and employers about the detrimental 
impact that this driver shortage has on the ability to 
efficiently receive and deliver freight. The truck driver 
shortage is exacerbated by a rule mentioned by Mr. Spear that 
prevents 18 to 20 year old drivers from crossing state lines.
    Currently, 48 states allow people to obtain a commercial 
driver's license and drive trucks at age 18, but Federal 
regulations prevent those drivers from crossing state lines 
until they turn 21. So if you are from the State of Indiana, 
you can drive a truck up to Jeffersonville, Indiana or New 
Albany, Indiana but you can't cross a river, the Ohio River and 
go into Louisville. You can drive into Dearborn County, 
Indiana, but you can't go over to Cincinnati or vice versa. So 
you can drive it up to Lake County in the Northwest, you can't 
go to Chicago.
    One can understand how this would really disrupt our 
commerce and threaten our economic expansion. That is why I 
have introduced the DRIVE-Safe Act with Senator Tester and a 
number of my colleagues on a broadly bipartisan basis that 
would establish an apprenticeship program that will address 
this driver shortage, create new career opportunities for young 
Hoosiers and young folks around America, and substantially 
raise training standards to ensure safety on our roads.
    As we look toward reauthorization of the highway bill, I 
encourage my colleagues to support this important truck safety 
and workforce development bill. Mr. Spear, can you touch on the 
pilot programs that DOT has already undertaken to address this 
issue, and reiterate why it is important that we pass the 
DRIVE-Safe Act to safely address the truck driver shortage.
    Mr. Spear. Certainly Senator and thank you for your 
leadership on this issue and the commentary. The Department of 
Transportation, I believe, agrees with the policy, the path 
that you are taking legislatively. Putting out the pilot 
program for military personnel in this age bracket is one-step. 
It is also an agency looking at broadening that pilot to non-
military personnel. But I want to take a step back on this for 
a moment just so that we have some context, OK.
    We are spending all our time talking about age. OK, let's 
just say 18, 19, 20, but you are legal at 21. OK, so one-year 
differential and you are legal. It is really not about age, it 
is about training. Your bill has 400 hours of apprenticeship-
based training of which 240 hours you have to have an 
experienced driver in the cab. You have technology, speed 
governors, you got cameras, and you got mitigation collision 
controls on that truck. Not one of the four--it is actually 49 
now. Alaska just adopted.
    So 49 states allow you to drive a Class 8 at 18 years old, 
you just can't cross state lines. Your bill puts all this 
training on top of that plus all this technology in addition to 
that. This is a step toward safety. What I want to know from 
everybody that is opposing this bill, where were they on the 49 
states that allow you to drive 850 miles in California but 
can't go 10 miles from Providence, Rhode Island into Rehoboth, 
Massachusetts? That has got to be the dumbest policy I have 
ever seen.
    You remedy it with training and you remedy it with 
technology. That is exactly what your bill does; it is exactly 
what the DOT is doing. You served in the military. Thank you 
for that. I have four kids. My oldest two, Army. I've got one 
who's going to commission next year as a Second Lieutenant in 
the Army. I have another one who's just started her plebe year 
at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
    I sleep pretty well at night. I don't know about my wife. 
She worries as mothers do but I don't. Why? Because I know they 
are getting the training they need to go off and protect our 
country, to fight for our freedom. How are we willing to allow 
18-year-olds to go off and do that, but we can't teach them how 
to cross state lines in a Class 8? This bill is responsible. It 
is safety-minded. It is the right thing to do.
    Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Spear. You had me until West 
Point as a Naval Academy graduate. So I will allow you to have 
the last word but I do ask unanimous consent to enter this 
letter showing broad bipartisan national support for this 
safety legislation into the record.
    Senator Fischer. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                                                   February 3, 2020
Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    As the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee begins 
its work on the safety title to accompany a surface transportation 
reauthorization bill, the undersigned organizations write to express 
strong support for the DRIVE-Safe Act (S.569), and to urge its 
inclusion in the forthcoming title. This strongly bipartisan 
legislation, which is currently cosponsored by more than one third of 
the Senate, will provide the opportunity for young Americans to become 
truck drivers, giving them access to good paying jobs in an industry 
that needs them, while ensuring and promoting safety.
    Though 48 states currently allow individuals to obtain a commercial 
driver's license at 18, they are prohibited from driving in interstate 
commerce, crossing state lines, until they are 21. The DRIVE-Safe Act 
would change this through a two-step apprenticeship program that 
creates a path for these drivers to enter the industry. As the name 
implies, however, the legislation's first priority is safety. In order 
to qualify, candidates must complete at least 400 hours of additional 
training, more than what is required for any other CDL holder in the 
Nation.
    Seventy percent of the Nation's freight is carried by commercial 
trucks, yet as our economy strengthens, motor carriers are having 
difficulty finding the drivers they need to handle growing capacity. 
According to a recent estimate, the Nation needs an additional 60,800 
truck drivers immediately, a shortage that is expected to grow to more 
than 160,000 by 2028. In fact, when anticipated driver retirement 
numbers are combined with the expected growth in capacity, over the 
next decade, the trucking industry will need to hire roughly 1.1 
million new drivers, or an average of nearly 110,000 per year.\1\ As a 
result of the driver shortage, companies in supply chains across the 
economy are facing higher transportation costs leading to increased 
prices for consumers on everything from electronics to food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019, American Trucking 
Associations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trucks used in the program established by the DRIVE-Safe Act would 
be required to be outfitted with the latest safety technology including 
active braking collision mitigation systems, forward-facing event 
recording cameras, speed limiters set at 65 miles per hour or less and 
automatic or automatic manual transmissions. Drivers training within 
the program will be accompanied by an experienced driver throughout the 
process.
    The DRIVE-Safe Act will help our Nation's freight continue to move 
while preserving and enhancing the safety of our highway system. It 
will help fill desperately needed jobs and provide younger Americans 
with the opportunity to enter a profession where they can earn an 
average of $53,000 a year with full benefits.
    Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration of this 
important and timely legislation. We look forward to working with you 
to include the DRIVE-Safe Act in the Senate Commerce Committee's 
forthcoming safety title to accompany a surface transportation 
reauthorization package.
            Sincerely,
Agricultural Retailers Association
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Bakers Association
American Beverage Association
American Chemistry Council
American Coatings Association
American Forest and Paper Association
American Foundry Society
American Frozen Food Institute
American Supply Association
American Trucking Associations
Associated Grocers of New England
Associated Equipment Distributors
Arizona Beverage Association
Auto Care Association
Beverage Association of Tennessee
Brick Industry Association
Commercial Vehicle Training Association
Consumer Brands Association
Convenience Distribution Association
Florida Beverage Association
FMI
Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association
Forest Resources Association
Georgia Beverage Associaton
HDDA: Heavy Duty
Heating, Air-Conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International
Hoosier Beverage Association
Intermodal Association of North America
International Association of Plastics Distribution
International Bottled Water Association
International Dairy Foods Association
International Foodservice Distributors Association
International Warehouse Logistics Association
Kansas Beverage Association
Maine Beverage Association
Michigan Soft Drink Association
Minnesota Beverage Association
National Association of Chemical Distributors
National Association of Electrical Distributors
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Truckstop Operators
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
National Automatic Merchandising Association
National Beer Wholesalers Association
National Council of Chain Restaurants
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Franchisee Association
National Grain and Feed Association
National Grocers Association
National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
National Milk Producers Federation
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Potato Council
National Private Truck Council
National Propane Gas Association
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
National Restaurant Association
National Retail Federation
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
National Waste and Recycling Association
New England Fuel Institute
New Hampshire Beverage Association
New Hampshire Grocers Association
North Carolina Beverage Association
Ohio Beverage Association
Pet Industry Distributors Association
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
Plumbing Manufacturers International
Portland Cement Association
Power Transmission Distributors Association
Printing Industries of America
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Service Station Dealers of America and Allied Trades
SNAC International
Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association
Textile Care Allied Trade Associations
The Fertilizer Institute
Tire Industry Association
Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Virginia Beverage Association
Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America
Wisconsin Beverage Association
World Millwork Alliance
UPS
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

    Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Young. Senator Capito.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the 
Ranking Member, and thank the panel. I am going to start with 
you, Mr. Spear, because you mentioned something in your 
response to Senator Young's question on training and different 
aspects of the technology that is available for the newer 
driver or the untrained driver.
    I was approached a couple probably six, eight months ago 
from a couple who lost their son who was rear-ended by a truck 
traveling in excessive speed on interstate. And one of the 
proposals that they have put forward to honor their son's life 
is to have a Governor on your semi that won't let you exceed 
the legal speed limit. What is your position on that?
    Mr. Spear. We actually just revisited this position partly 
because my staff, our members, and I felt that the eleven-year-
old policy that we had was outdated. It was 65 governed, but it 
was not just trucks but cars. So what happens is, if you govern 
trucks at 65 and you don't include cars, states like Texas and 
South Dakota, where speeds exceed 80 miles an hour for cars, 
you can drive legally which means you could probably do a 
little faster and not get pulled over. There is a big 
differential between what that truck is going and what the car 
is going.
    And if people are speeding and they are texting, that is a 
recipe for an accident, possibly a fatality. So the 
differential is a big concern of ours. We believe that 
technology has a role to play. So we looked at the policy. We 
upgraded it just last year. It is still 65 for trucks, but up 
to 70, if you have certain technologies within that equipment.
    Senator Capito. But let me just ask you that though, but 
that is not on trucks as we have now is a requirement or an 
option or anything? Just in the training?
    Mr. Spear. Yes. A lot of our fleets govern at various 
speeds, some 65--some lower than that. Some 67 some at 70, but 
we have plenty of fleets in our membership that govern. We do, 
and they train to that.
    Senator Capito. Yes, I didn't mean to interrupt. I just 
wanted to make a clarification on that. Does anybody else have 
a comment on that?
    Ms. King. I do.
    Senator Capito. Yes, go ahead.
    Ms. King. I don't think that the differential is that big 
an issue. We already have differential lines. Our freeways, 
there is no freeway out there that everybody is going 65 or 
everyone is going 70, and most of us are driving 80, and many 
trucks are speed limited to 65. And, we don't see that that has 
been a real issue. In Ontario, they mandated speed limiters, 
and they did a study recently that showed they had a 73 percent 
reduction in speed related truck crashes.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you. I----
    Mr. Pugh. Excuse me.
    Senator Capito. Yes?
    Mr. Pugh. I need to follow up as well. As someone who 
actually drove a truck, speed limiters are not a good thing 
from the driver's perspective. Due to the fact that there has 
been many occasions that someone driving up the highway, and I 
am sure you have all realized in your car that once in a while 
I need the ability to get myself out of harm's way. Whether 
that is speeding up momentarily or whatever to get away from 
something to be safer for myself and the people around me.
    If I am governed, I don't have that control. I have heard 
over and over here about training fees, 18 to 20 year old. We 
need training for no matter what your age is and proper 
training, and I hear about technology. All these things are 
wonderful things and they have their place but nothing can 
replace a trained driver. And a trained driver knows how to 
control the truck, knows how to operate. They don't want their 
trucks to be limited because they want to run down the highway 
at 100 miles an hour. They don't want their truscks to be 
limited because they want to have the control of their vehicle 
and be in complete control of their vehicle.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Well that brings me to another 
question that I have which is the AV capabilities of truck. 
Now, I see a great future here in a lot of different 
circumstances, but the circumstance I describe, a crowded 
interstate, at night or in bad weather is hard for me to 
imagine a large. Some of these interstates have a very high 
percentage of trucks, particularly at night when a lot of 
drivers are driving, understandably. How do you see the AV 
technology with trucks and heavier weight vehicles, Mr. Spear?
    Mr. Spear. Promising. We really applaud the Secretary of 
Transportation for her 4.0 guidance in the space. It is much 
needed. It needs to include not just cars but trucks and all 
cars. All 25 auto manufacturers agreed to put automated 
emergency breaking as standard on every vehicle come 2022.
    So in two years we are going to have AEB on all cars being 
produced. You still have speeding. You still have texting. You 
still have distracted driving. Two-thirds of the accidents that 
involve our trucks are caused by passenger vehicles, and it is 
usually distracted driving as the root cause. We would love the 
5.9, 7 channels preserved for safety.
    If you are connecting the cars, the trucks, and the 
infrastructure, it matters that that driver and the passenger 
vehicle is texting and not paying attention, but the 
technology, being able to talk to the truck, see it coming, and 
apply that AEB is going to save lives. That will take a 
dramatic reduction in the 40,000 fatalities every year on our 
highways and prevent those accidents from happening.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, and thanks for 
having this hearing. These are subjects that are very important 
to rural states like South Dakota. And several panelists have 
mentioned the potential benefits of new technologies to truck 
safety. The efficiency of motor carrier inspections can improve 
quality of life for drivers. Sergeant Samis, could you provide 
some examples of how new technologies can help improve the 
inspection process for both drivers and the law enforcement 
community?
    Mr. Samis. Yes, sir. It is important to remember that we 
are tasked with enforcing the regulations and ensuring 
compliance by the motor carrier industry, but there will never 
be enough resources for law enforcement to touch all the people 
out there on the roadway. There are a vast number of trucks and 
trucking companies out there.
    One of the things that we are looking to do is introduce 
the universal electronic identifier, which would help us 
identify trucks and focus our resources on the bad actors.
    Senator Thune. Mr. Spear, you mentioned in your testimony 
the importance of technology such as automatic emergency 
braking and lane keep assist to improving truck safety. What 
can Congress do to incentivize the adoption of these 
technologies in the trucking fleet?
    Mr. Spear. Be tech neutral. Let innovation thrive. It is so 
far ahead of anything we are doing in the Government and it is 
a good thing if it is channeled toward safety, if it is 
channeled toward things that eliminate congestion. There is so 
much in combination with infrastructure and safety policy that 
technology can solve. We don't want to restrain it but you do 
need to keep pace with it and make certain that it doesn't 
cause a ripple effect.
    Right now, you have a lot of localities from Uber in 
Pittsburgh doing testing grounds to states like Michigan, you 
know, California, and Nevada. You have a lot of pockets of 
technology being developed. But in the end it is going to be 
going over state lines, cars and trucks. We are governed by 
interstate commerce rules. I don't need a patchwork of 50 
different regimes governing what technology you should comply 
with and what you shouldn't.
    So having a seamless standard is really, really important, 
so that if there is anything that I would recommend to this 
committee is maintaining that seamless one standard fabric and 
not creating a whole patchwork because that is really going to 
cause a lot of disruption to the economy, certainly to our 
industry if that happens.
    Senator Thune. Mr. Parnell, together with former Senator 
Nelson, I had sent a letter to FMCSA urging the agency to 
thoroughly consider a 2018 petition submitted by livestock 
haulers requesting modification to certain hours of service 
regulations.
    In response, FMCSA provided official notice and requested 
public comments on the petition in February 2019. You mentioned 
in your testimony that FMCSA has not taken any further action 
on this petition. In conversations with the agency, has FMCSA 
further action is forthcoming?
    Mr. Parnell. Thank you for your consistent support of our 
industry and of the lifestyle haulers. We did comment on that 
petition 12 months ago when they released it for comment. We 
also commented on the new proposed rulemaking, in particular 
the adverse weather conditions. To us, some of the adverse 
weather conditions are heat and humidity when it comes to 
hauling livestock and having to stop on the side of the road.
    So we are continuing to, you know, be involved in that 
process. In conversations with the agency, they have not 
indicated to us when an actual decision or ruling on our 
petition might be levied but we continue to be hopeful that 
they will recognize our petition and support it.
    Senator Thune. Just as a follow-up on that, do you have any 
additional suggestions for actions that FMCSA could take to 
accommodate the specific circumstances of livestock haulers 
while maintaining still very high levels of safety?
    Mr. Parnell. I get it. I am a dad of three young children, 
a 5-year-old and twin 4-year-olds. I would take them on these 
rural roads with me. They would go out to shipments with me and 
we deal with, you know, livestock haulers, Ag trucks, any kind 
of trucks. I get the concern for safety but the safety of the 
product that is our livelihood is really important as well. And 
so I think we continue with the thoughts and that petition, 
some flexibilities on our service.
    Maybe the, you know, Ag exemption for the 150 miles at the 
end to let these guys finish their hauls. There are options out 
there. There are options that have been introduced in 
legislation that I understand that we would love to work 
through and find that proper solution to give our kind of 
unique industry the help it needs.
    Senator Thune. OK. Very quickly, Sergeant Samis, you 
mentioned in your testimony the changes made to the Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program, or MCSAP, to reduce 
administrative burdens for both FMCSA and the states and 
implementing motor carrier safety enforcement. As the next 
reauthorization approaches, which is upon us, what additional 
flexibility can we provide states to assist in improving 
commercial motor vehicle safety?
    Mr. Samis. One of the challenges we face is the limited 
time to spend the funds that we are granted. The biggest help 
we could receive is more time to spend that money and allowing 
FMCSA to redistribute unspent funds rather than return them if 
the states have to give them back. Those funds were allocated 
for safety programs and we would like to keep them for their 
intended use.
    Ms. King. Could I just piggyback on Mr. Spears comment on 
technology? You asked what Congress could do in relation to 
that. I think it is important that we recognize safety 
technology has promise but we also need Congress to require 
minimum performance standards so that we don't have several 
different AEB technologies out there and we know what AEB 
should be doing.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
    Mr. Pugh. May I follow up on that as well?
    Senator Thune. Yes.
    Mr. Pugh. Thank you. I will be brief. You asked what 
Congress could do for the safety of drivers? I have heard about 
the safety of cattle. I have heard about the safety of the 
motoring public. And I agree that is all very important. I have 
heard no one talked about the safety of the driver. Truckers do 
die too. Truckers know better than anyone out there, how 
dangerous the highways are. I saw horrific things when I drove 
a truck on the road so truckers get it, truckers want to be 
safe.
    What Congress can do, one thing they can do is find some 
funding, some dedicated funding, support the bill that OOIDA is 
working on right now in Congress, is getting ready to come out, 
for places to park. That is one of the biggest crisis we have 
in trucking right now is parking. Our drivers are forced to 
follow rigid hours of service; they are forced to use DLDs. 
Just like the cows need a safe place to be, so do our truckers.
    Senator Thune. Alright, good answer. Thank you. Madam 
Chair, thank you.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Thune. Thank you to the 
panel members today for a very good discussion. Appreciate you 
being here. The hearing record will remain open for two weeks, 
and during this time Senators are asked to submitting any 
questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are 
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as 
soon as possible.
    Again, thank you for a good hearing today. We are 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Intelligent Transportation Society of America
                                                   January 31, 2020
Hon. Deb Fischer,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Tammy Duckworth,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth:

    In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety's 
upcoming hearing entitled ``Keep on Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives 
on Trucking in America,'' the Intelligent Transportation Society of 
America (ITS America) writes to emphasize how new and developing 
Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technologies that rely on dedicated 
spectrum--known as the 5.9 GHz band--can dramatically reduce truck 
fatalities and crashes. According to the to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 70 percent of crashes involving trucks 
could be mitigated by V2X technologies.
    A problem with a solution--but it is not that simple. The Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) has recently proposed giving away a 
majority of that spectrum, and it has done so without any data or 
analysis. The FCC is prepared to sacrifice safer roads so that 
unlicensed devices can operate in the 5.9 GHz band. It is a reckless 
decision that will put truck drivers, other road users, and first 
responders at risk.
The Commission has made several flawed arguments to support its 
        proposal.
    First, the Commission says that the automotive industry has not 
done anything with the 5.9 GHz band since it was allocated for 
transportation safety in 1999. However, while the initial allocation 
occurred in 1999, it was not until 2008 that the transportation 
industry and incumbent satellite technologies reached a spectrum 
sharing agreement allowing V2X technologies to operate in the band 
without interference. Then, in 2012, Section 6406 of the Middle Class 
Tax relief and job Creation Act of 2012 required the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration to study whether 
unlicensed devices could also operate in the 5.9 GHz band, increasing 
regulatory uncertainty about the future of the band. Next, Congress 
requested testing in 2015 regarding the operation of these unlicensed 
devices to ensure they would not interfere with incumbent 
transportation safety technologies, testing that has still not been 
completed by the Commission to this day. Finally, in 2018, two FCC 
Commissioners actually wrote a letter to Toyota, which was planning to 
deploy V2X in its vehicles starting in 2021, to suggest that the FCC 
could re-channelize the 5.9 GHz band, and warning Toyota to keep that 
in mind ``when committing capital expenditures to DSRC technology.'' As 
this timeline shows, there has been significant regulatory uncertainty 
surrounding the 5.9 GHz band, and the FCC's own actions have delayed 
deployment of these lifesaving technologies. Despite all of this, as of 
2018 there were roughly 60 V2X deployments in more than 30 states 
around the country.
    Second, the Commission relied on an economic analysis claiming that 
opening up the 5.9 GHz band to unlicensed devices would provide $189.9 
billion in benefits but failed to adequately consider the economic 
effects of retaining the 5.9 GHz band for transportation safety. While 
the Commission notes that the economic analysis did not estimate the 
potential loss of value from a reduction in spectrum for V2X, the 
Department of Transportation has stated that there are $800 billion in 
annual economic costs from the loss of life, injuries, and other 
quality of life factors that result from the more than 37,000 lives 
lost on our Nation's roadways each year, much of which could be averted 
with lifesaving V2X technologies. That figure also does not include the 
significant economic benefits of reducing traffic congestion, another 
benefit of V2X technologies, which costs the Nation more than $140 
billion annually according to the Department of Transportation.
    Third, the Commission states that automated vehicles will make the 
safety benefits of V2X technologies unnecessary. However, V2X 
technologies have applications that cannot be performed by un-connected 
automated vehicles, such as being able to communicate with vehicles 
that are out of line-of-sight, providing road hazard warnings from 
roadside infrastructure, and allowing automated vehicles to coordinate 
actions rather than making decisions individually.
    Additionally, both the public and private sectors have invested 
hundreds of millions of dollars in developing and deploying V2X 
technologies. V2X is up and running today in more than 30 states and 
dozens of cities across the country. The FCC's action would completely 
undermine much of this investment, discarding the significant advances 
that states, localities, and private companies have made in recent 
years. For example--

   Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) is deploying CV 
        technology along the 402 miles of I-80 where winter wind speeds 
        and gusts result in trucks blowing over and often lead to road 
        closures. WYDOT's V2X pilot focuses on commercial vehicle 
        operators by developing applications to support advisories 
        including roadside alerts, parking notifications, and dynamic 
        travel guidance. WYDOT is equipping 400 vehicles, a combination 
        of fleet vehicles and commercial trucks, with on-board units 
        (OBUs). Of the 400 vehicles, at least 150 will be heavy trucks 
        that are expected to be regular users of I-80. In addition, of 
        the 400 equipped-vehicles, 100 WYDOT fleet vehicles, snowplows, 
        and highway patrol vehicles will be equipped with OBUs and 
        mobile weather sensors.

   Driver-assistive truck platooning enabled by Vehicle-to-
        Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Cloud (V2C) communications allows 
        a follow truck to react to the lead truck safety systems, 
        braking, and acceleration. Using connected vehicle technology, 
        trucks can safely operate at closer distances to form a 
        platoon. This kind of connected ``cooperative'' automation 
        improves safety as well as fuel efficiency and emissions. 
        Deployment of commercial truck platooning can also increase the 
        efficiency of today's freight transportation without the need 
        for additional investment in or modifications to today's 
        highway infrastructure. Since 2018, a number of U.S. truck OEMs 
        and technology companies have been running commercial trials of 
        truck platooning, working with major trucking fleets. These 
        systems combine best-available truck safety systems with V2V, 
        making trucks much safer in both individual operation and when 
        paired in platoons. Truck platooning systems using V2V have 
        been developed in the U.S. by companies such as Kenworth, 
        Peterbilt, Volvo Trucks, Navistar, and Peloton Technology. 
        Currently, truck platooning systems using V2V continue to move 
        freight in the United States as part of customer fleet 
        activity, setting the stage for growing commercial use of 
        platooning.

   V2X technologies can also enhance automated driving systems, 
        which can provide numerous economic, environmental, and 
        societal benefits, such as decreased congestion and fuel 
        consumption, and increased access for older adults and people 
        with disabilities. While today's automated driving systems rely 
        on lidar sensors and mapping data, future ADS technologies will 
        rely on V2X to provide accurate information on speed, heading, 
        status of brake pedal, and more. In the future, V2X 
        communication will instantaneously alert an autonomous vehicle 
        about objects it cannot directly see, which is vital for safety 
        and facilitates better decision making by these autonomous 
        vehicles.

    V2X technologies are not only saving lives, they are improving 
operational performance of our roads--weather and pavement condition, 
how signals are directing traffic, and even the location of potential 
hazards at intersections and other critical road safety hotspots. V2X 
applications include red light violation warnings, reduced speed zone 
warnings, curve speed warnings, and spot weather impact warnings. V2X 
soon will support other applications that will disseminate the 
condition of the infrastructure, such as bridge integrity, and may even 
collect data from vehicles that describe pavement condition.
    Even Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao asked the FCC to 
reconsider its proposal. It ``jeopardizes the significant 
transportation safety benefits that the allocation of this Band was 
meant to foster,'' she wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. The 
U.S. Department of Transportation's research shows that the FCC 
proposal would likely cause significant interference with V2X 
technologies operating in the remaining spectrum, which could in effect 
render the spectrum useless for transportation safety.
    For the reasons noted above, ITS America urges the Senate Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to use its FCC oversight 
authority to direct the Commission to reconsider the approach in the 
NPRM that reallocates spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed 
use, such as Wi-Fi. It is unfathomable that we would literally give 
away the best safety tool we have--and with it, our best chance to save 
tens of thousands of lives every year.
            Sincerely,
                                          Shailen P. Bhatt,
                                                 President and CEO,
                         Intelligent Transportation Society of America.
Cc: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Ron Thaniel, ITS America Vice President of Legislative Affairs, 
[email protected]
                                 ______
                                 
           American Property Casualty Insurance Association
                                                   February 3, 2020
Hon. Deb Fischer,
Chair
Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Tammy Duckworth,
Ranking Member,
Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chair Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth:

    The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) 
commends the Committee for holding today's hearing entitled ``Keep on 
Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives on Trucking in America.''
    APCIA represents nearly 60 percent of the U.S. property casualty 
insurance and reinsurance market, with the broadest cross-section of 
home, auto, and business insurers of any national trade association. 
APCIA members protect families, communities, and businesses in the U.S. 
and across the globe. More specifically, APCIA members write 
approximately 70 percent of the commercial auto insurance coverage in 
the United States, which includes commercial trucking. As such, our 
members have a strong interest in today's hearing.
    APCIA and the property casualty insurance industry have long 
prioritized the importance of highway safety. The industry remains 
actively engaged in advancing technology to make commercial and 
personal vehicles safer, supporting policies to reduce distracted and 
impaired driving (including cannabis-related impairment), and improving 
and modernizing the Nation's infrastructure to ensure the safety of our 
roads and highways.
    The industry actively participates in the leading commercial and 
personal auto and highway safety organizations, including The Governors 
Highway Safety Association, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration's Our Roads, Our Safety partnership. Our 
industry is committed to enhancing safety on the Nation's roads, 
including promoting safe driving for large trucks and buses, and 
reducing injuries and deaths.
    Unfortunately, the frequency and economic severity of crashes 
remains high. Several factors seem to be combining and magnifying their 
individual impacts. Among the most disturbing is the increasing 
frequency of distracted driving related to smartphone use. Other 
contributing factors include a deteriorating highway infrastructure, 
road congestion, and `distracted walking,' with individuals literally 
walking into moving vehicles.
    At the same time, costs related to crashes continue to increase. 
Some increased costs--such as those associated with repairing advanced 
safety technology systems on modern vehicles--help save lives and 
reduce injuries.
    Other factors such as medical inflation, exploiting the judicial 
system, and lawsuit abuse do not serve such noble purposes. As recently 
reported by the Wall Street Journal, lawsuit abuse is nearing a crisis 
and is forcing some trucking operators to shut down.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-truck-insurance-rates-hit-
freight-operators-11578934834
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2019, APCIA surveyed our members on the most worrisome liability 
trends. APCIA members ranked transportation liability and legal costs 
as the second most worrisome sector in terms of increasing frequency 
and severity among various product categories (second only to increases 
in construction liability costs). Currently, APCIA is undertaking a 
more comprehensive analysis, aimed at determining some of the causes 
for the negative trends in this sector.
    Commercial trucking operations play a vital role in the U.S. 
economy by ensuring that products reach the shelves of retailers, goods 
arrive at the consumer's door-step, and parts and supplies reach 
manufacturers. Artificially increasing costs to trucking companies 
through abusive litigation practices will not only directly impact 
those companies, it will cause repercussions for the broader economy. 
We urge the Committee to consider the costs of abusive litigation on 
the trucking sector and look forward to working with the Committee and 
truckers to address this problem.
    As noted, APCIA also believes that mitigation will play a crucial 
role in reversing these trends and, most importantly, save lives and 
reduce injuries and damage that negatively impact consumers and 
business. Consequently, we are also very supportive of the Committee's 
examination of efforts to make America's roads and vehicles safer.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
            Sincerely,
                                     Nathaniel F. Wienecke,
                                             Senior Vice President.
                                 ______
                                 
           Prepared Statement of Catherine Chase, President, 
                 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Introduction
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of 
public health, safety and consumer organizations, insurers and 
insurance agents that promotes highway and auto safety through the 
adoption of Federal and state laws, policies and regulations. Advocates 
is unique both in its board composition and its mission of advancing 
safer vehicles, safer motorists and road users, and safer roads.
    We thank Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth for the 
opportunity to submit this written testimony to the hearing record. 
Throughout this hearing, ``Keep on Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives 
on Trucking in America,'' we encourage the Chairman, Ranking Member and 
all members of the Subcommittee to think through the perspective that 
all motorists, both truck drivers and everyone sharing the roads with 
them, are in fact ``stakeholders''. Recent crashes including those that 
seriously injured Tracy Morgan and killed James McNair on the New 
Jersey Turnpike, a crash that occurred near Grand Island, Nebraska that 
claimed the life of a 72-year old woman, a horrific tragedy that 
injured 12 and claimed the lives of four young woman near Hamel, 
Illinois in 2017, and less recent crashes including the one that took 
the life of Truck Safety Coalition's president Dawn King's father, Bill 
Badger, demonstrate the vulnerability of motorists and must serve as a 
clarion call to Congress to advance proven safety solutions with great 
urgency.
Large Truck Crash Deaths Continue to Skyrocket
    Fatal truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate. 
In 2018, crashes involving large trucks killed 4,951 people--a 
staggering increase of 46 percent since a low in 2009.\1\ Additionally, 
148,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks in 2017, 
the latest year for which data is available. In fatal two-vehicle 
crashes between a large truck and a passenger motor vehicle, 96 percent 
of the fatalities were occupants of the passenger vehicle.\2\ The cost 
to society from crashes involving large trucks and buses was estimated 
to be $135 billion in 2017--amounting to a ``crash tax'' of over $400 
per American.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Traffic Safety Facts: Research note, 2018 Fatal Motor Vehicle 
Crashes: Overview, NHTSA, Oct. 2019, DOT HS 812 826; and Traffic Safety 
Facts 2017: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Sep. 
2019, DOT HS 812 806. (2017 Annual Report). Statistics are from the 
U.S. Department of Transportation unless otherwise noted.
    \2\ 2017 Annual Report.
    \3\ 2019 Pocket Guide to large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA, 
Jan. 2020, RRA-19-012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A number of identified and persistent problems are contributing to 
these crashes, deaths and injuries. However, solutions are available 
that can help to reverse these grim statistics. Unfortunately, many of 
these safety advances continue to languish and worse yet, certain 
segments of the industry are relentless in their efforts to roll back, 
weaken and degrade essential rules and regulations. This deadly and 
costly trend will only be reversed with proactive action taken by our 
Nation's leaders.
Policies which Could Improve Truck Safety for All Road Users Today
    Require automatic emergency braking in all new trucks and cars to 
prevent and mitigate crashes. According to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), from 2003 through 2008, large trucks 
were the striking vehicle in approximately 32,000 rear-end crashes 
resulting in 300 fatalities and injuring over 15,000 people annually. 
In 2015, Advocates, along with the Center for Auto Safety, the Truck 
Safety Coalition (TSC) and Road Safe America, filed a petition with 
NHTSA seeking the issuance of a rule to require forward collision 
avoidance and mitigation braking systems (F-CAM), now more commonly 
referred to as automatic emergency braking (AEB), on commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 
pounds or more.\4\ These systems alert the driver to an object in front 
of the CMV, such as a motor vehicle, and can apply the brakes to stop 
the CMV if the driver fails to respond. The NHTSA estimated in 2012 
that fleetwide adoption of advanced AEB systems in CMVs could save 166 
lives per year and prevent 8,361 injuries.\5\ Furthermore, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended that AEB systems be 
required on all highway vehicles.\6\ The agency granted Advocates' 
petition in October of 2015 but has not undertaken any further 
regulatory proceedings.\7\ This needless delay is unconscionable when 
crashes could be prevented and lives could be saved by technology which 
is available and already in many CMVs. The Protecting Roadside First 
Responders Act (S. 2700/H.R. 4871), co-sponsored by Ranking Member 
Duckworth, and the Safe Roads Act (H.R. 3773) would require CMVs to be 
equipped with AEB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Petition of Rulemaking: Requesting Issuance of a Rule to 
Require the Use of Forward Collision Avoidance and Mitigation Systems 
for Commercial Motor Vehicles, Advocates et. al., Feb. 19, 2015, NHTSA-
2015-0099-0001.
    \5\ Woodroofe, J., et al., Performance Characterization and Safety 
Effectiveness Estimates of Forward Collision Avoidance and Mitigation 
Systems for Medium/Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Report No. UMTRI-2011-36, 
UMTRI (August 2012). Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0067-0001.
    \6\ NTSB, 2019-2020 Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety 
Improvements.
    \7\ 80 FR 62487 (Oct. 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Congress should swiftly pass S. 2700/H.R. 4871 and H.R. 
        3773 to require NHTSA to set a minimum performance standard and 
        issue a rule requiring CMVs be equipped with AEB.
    Prevent or mitigate underride crashes, where a motor vehicle 
travels underneath the rear or side of a truck trailer. Technology is 
currently available that can significantly increase the chances that an 
individual can survive these violent events. For this reason, Advocates 
supports enactment of the Stop Underrides Act of 2019 (S.665/H.R. 
1511). This important legislation will require the current Federal 
standards for rear underride guards to be upgraded to meet current 
industry standards as well as the installation of side and front 
guards.
    In 2015, the NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to 
update the standards for rear impact guards that are installed on the 
rear of trailers.\8\ However, the NPRM proposed only to upgrade the 
Federal standard to meet the Canadian standard which was issued over a 
decade ago and is substandard given guards currently available in the 
marketplace which have been shown to have superior performance 
capabilities. In addition, the agency failed to require that single-
unit trucks (SUTs) be equipped with underride guards, instead requiring 
retroreflective tape on the side and rear. While requiring 
retroreflective tape is long overdue, it alone is not a sufficient 
countermeasure. Therefore, in order to properly address the public 
safety threat posed by rear underride crashes, the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to rear underride guards 
should be updated to meet the standards set by the Insurance Institute 
for Highway Safety (IIHS) in their TOUGHGUARD award and should be 
applied to SUTs as well as trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 80 FR 78418 (Dec. 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IIHS has also conducted two tests of a side underride guard. 
The AngelWing guard, made by Airflow Deflector Inc., succeeded in 
blocking a midsize car traveling 35 miles-per-hour (MPH) from going 
underneath the side of the trailer. A subsequent test showed it also 
prevented underride at 40 MPH.\9\ In addition, front guards that 
prevent a truck from overriding or traveling over a passenger motor 
vehicle when the truck strikes the rear of the vehicle have been in use 
in the European Union for years. The NTSB has recommended improving 
comprehensive underride protection.\10\ It is time for this lifesaving 
equipment to finally make its way onto America's roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ iihs.org/topics/large-trucks#truck-underride
    \10\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-10-013, H-14-002, H-14-003, H-
14-004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Congress should promptly pass the Stop Underrides Act 
        (S. 665/H.R. 1511) which will require the current Federal 
        standards for rear underride guards to be upgraded and the 
        installation of side and front guards.
    Mandate speed limiters in large trucks. According to the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), 10,440 people were killed 
from 2004 to 2013 in crashes where the speed of the CMV likely 
contributed to the severity of the crash. On average, that is over 
1,000 lives lost annually to speeding CMVs. In September of 2016, NHTSA 
and the FMCSA issued a joint NPRM to require vehicles with a GVWR of 
more than 26,000 pounds to be equipped with a speed limiting 
device.\11\ The safety benefits of limiting the speed of a CMV are 
indisputable and the NTSB has recommended that CMVs be equipped with 
the technology.\12\ The NPRM estimated that setting the device at 60 
MPH has the potential to save almost 500 lives and prevent nearly 
11,000 injuries annually.\13\ Setting the speed at 65 MPH could save as 
many as 214 lives and prevent approximately 4,500 injuries each 
year.\14\ Speed limiters are also already widely used in the industry 
and their implementation is supported by truck drivers. Research shows 
that the technology is currently being used by 77 percent of trucks on 
the road in the United States.\15\ Furthermore, a 2007 survey of truck 
drivers by IIHS found 64 percent of drivers were in favor of a truck 
speed governor requirement.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 81 FR 61942 (Sep. 7, 2016). [SL 2016 NPRM]
    \12\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-12-020, H-12-021.
    \13\ SL 2016 NPRM.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) and Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, FMVSS No. 140, Speed Limiting Devices, 
p. 28 (NHTSA, Aug. 2016).
    \16\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Speed limiters 
in trucks would serve 2 purposes, Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8 (Aug. 
21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the public safety benefits of requiring speed limiting 
devices in CMVs are clear and a majority of the current fleet is 
already equipped with the technology, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (U.S. DOT) continues to delay the issuance of a final 
rule to require this lifesaving safety equipment. The cost of the 
proposed requirement is expected to be minimal since most CMVs are 
already equipped with either mechanical or electronic capability to 
limit the speed of the vehicle. ``Turning on'' the speed limiters that 
are not already engaged or changing the speed control to the limit 
required by the final rule, involves only a minor maintenance cost.
Recommendation: We urge Congress to enact S. 2033, the Cullum Owings 
        Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act of 2019, to require that 
        the U.S. DOT issue a final rule requiring all new CMVs to be 
        equipped with speed limiting devices and for those vehicles 
        currently equipped with the technology to engage this 
        lifesaving device.
    To obtain a Commercial Driver's License (CDL), a candidate should 
be required to undergo uniform adequate training. In 2015, Advocates 
was appointed by the FMCSA to serve on the Entry-Level Driver Training 
Advisory Committee (ELDTAC) established to complete a negotiated 
rulemaking on Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) for novice CMV 
operators. The consensus reached by the ELDTAC, as well as the NPRM 
issued by the FMCSA in March 2016, included the requirement that 
applicants for a CDL receive a minimum number of hours of behind-the-
wheel (BTW) instruction (BTW hours requirement) as part of the core 
curricula approved for applicants seeking either a Class A or B CDL. As 
the FMCSA noted in the NPRM, ``. . . BTW training for entry-level 
drivers is uniquely suited to an hours-based approach because it 
ensures that driver-trainees will obtain the basic safe driving skills 
necessary to obtain a Class A or Class B CDL and to operate their 
vehicles safely--skills that can only be obtained after spending a 
reasonable amount of time actually driving a CMV.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 81 FR 11944 (Mar. 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the final rule issued by the agency in December 2016 
removed the BTW hours requirement. Instead, the rule simply requires 
that candidates demonstrate to their instructor that they are 
proficient in performing a series of maneuvers while operating a 
CMV.\18\ This does not ensure that CDL applicants who can pass the 
state CDL skills test will spend any time actually operating a CMV on 
public roads with an experienced instructor encountering safety 
critical situations. This type of real-world training and experience 
for CDL candidates, which several bodies of experts have determined 
should be required, is needed to enhance the ability of CDL applicants 
to operate a truck-trailer combination vehicle safely and to avoid 
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 81 F.R. 88732 (Dec. 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FMCSA's inability and incessant delays in issuing a rule 
establishing ELDT for novice CMV operators is simply confounding. In 
1991, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to undertake a 
rulemaking on the need to require training of all entry-level drivers 
of CMVs.\19\ Although a comprehensive curriculum for ELDT was developed 
and approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the mid-
1980s, in the subsequent decades the agency has failed to respond in a 
timely fashion to Congressional deadlines or issued insufficient rules 
that dsid not withstand judicial review. Despite the ELDTAC concluding 
its work almost five years ago, the latest iteration of the driver 
training rule is delayed once again as announced by the agency on 
January 29, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 
1991, Section 4007(a), Pub. L. 102-240 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Congress should direct the FMCSA to amend the ELDT 
        final rule to include a minimum number of BTW training hours to 
        ensure that novice drivers receive adequate training before 
        operating a CMV on public roads.
    Data on carrier performance must be collected and publicly 
available. With fatal truck crashes continuing to occur at an 
alarmingly high rate unhampered by appropriate accountability, there is 
insufficient incentive for unsafe carriers to improve their operations. 
FMCSA's Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program evaluates the 
safety and compliance of motor carriers and is designed to identify 
high risk operations for intervention and improvement. Involvement in 
previous truck crashes in and of themselves and regardless of ``fault'' 
has been found by industry, academia and the government to be an 
accurate predictor of involvement in future truck crashes. The goal of 
CSA is to implement more effective and efficient ways for FMCSA, its 
state partners and the trucking industry to prevent CMV crashes, 
fatalities, and injuries.
    Unfortunately, essential CSA data was removed from public view by 
section 5223 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) 
Act.\20\ The FAST Act also required the National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to study the CSA program method for 
evaluating the safety of motor carriers and commercial vehicle drivers. 
In 2017, the NASEM study concluded that the method was sound and made 
several recommendations to improve the CSA program including that FMCSA 
should continue to collaborate with states and other agencies to 
improve the collection of data on vehicle miles traveled and on crashes 
as well as certain characteristics of carriers such as turnover 
rates.\21\ Advocates is not aware of any subsequent action on these 
proposals, to the detriment of the integrity of CSA and to the danger 
of the motoring public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Pub. L. 114-94 (2015).
    \21\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 
2017.Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement, Washington, DC: The 
National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Relatedly, in 2016, the FMCSA issued a NPRM to revise the carrier 
safety ratings procedures in light of adoption of the CSA program. This 
rulemaking was intended to allow the agency to better evaluate the 
safety records of carriers. Advocates supported the agency's action to 
upgrade the safety fitness determination (SFD) process, which informs 
the CSA program, by using on-road safety data to evaluate carriers in 
addition to an agency investigation. This update to the SFD program 
would have significantly enhanced the FMCSA's ability to identify 
unsafe carriers because it would have enabled the agency to use data 
from the carrier's on-road operations, yet the agency withdrew the 
rulemaking in March of 2017.
Recommendation: Congress should require that the public availability of 
        CSA scores be immediately reinstated while the improvements 
        recommended by the NASEM study are implemented. The public 
        should once again have access to this important safety data on 
        trucking companies without any further delay. Furthermore, 
        Congress should direct the FMCSA to immediately reinstate and 
        complete the safety fitness determination rulemaking.
    Promulgate safeguards and regulations to ensure autonomous 
technology is deployed safely. Autonomous technology offers the promise 
of significantly reducing crashes involving CMVs. However, the advent 
of this technology must not be used as a pretext to eviscerate 
essential safety regulations administered by the FMCSA. The public 
safety protections provided by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSRs) become no less important or applicable simply 
because a CMV has been equipped with an autonomous driving system 
(ADS). In fact, additional substantial public safety concerns are 
presented by autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs).
    Autonomous technology is still in its infancy as evidenced by fatal 
and serious crashes involving passenger motor vehicles equipped with 
automated systems of varying levels. If those incidents had involved 
ACMVs, the results could have been even more catastrophic and the death 
and injury toll could have been much worse. Some of the most pressing 
safety shortcomings associated with autonomous vehicle technology, 
which include the ADS properly detecting and reacting to other road 
users, driver engagement and cybersecurity, are exponentially amplified 
by the greater mass and force of an ACMV. As such, it is imperative 
that ACMVs be subject to comprehensive regulations, including having a 
licensed driver behind the wheel for the foreseeable future. The 
development and deployment of these experimental vehicles must also be 
subject to robust safeguards including sufficient data collection and 
sharing, performance requirements and enhanced operating authorities, 
at a minimum.
Recommendation: ACMVs must be subject to robust Federal regulations and 
        minimum performance requirements including that a trained 
        commercial driver be behind the wheel at all times. Critical 
        safety regulations that apply to driver hours-of-service (HOS), 
        licensing requirements, entry level training and medical 
        qualifications should not be weakened. Carriers using ACMVs 
        should also have to apply for additional operating authority 
        and drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional 
        endorsement on their CDL to ensure they have been properly 
        trained to operate an ACMV.
Any Erosion of Current Truck Safety Protections Will Lead to Our 
        Nation's Roads Being More Dangerous and Deadly
    Overweight trucks disproportionately damage America's crumbling 
infrastructure and threaten public safety. Federal limits on the weight 
and size of CMVs are intended to protect truck drivers, the traveling 
public and roads and bridges. Yet, provisions allowing larger and 
heavier trucks that violate or circumvent these Federal laws to operate 
in certain states or for specific industries have often been tucked 
into must-pass bills to avoid public scrutiny.
    According to the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card from the American 
Society of Civil Engineers, America's roads receive a grade of ``D'' 
and our bridges were given a ``C+''. \22\ Nearly 40 percent of our 
615,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory are 50 years or older, 
and one out of 11 is structurally deficient.\23\ The U.S. DOT 
Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study found that introducing double 
33-foot trailer trucks, known as ``Double 33s,'' would be projected to 
result in 2,478 bridges requiring strengthening or replacement at an 
estimated one-time cost of $1.1 billion.\24\ This figure does not even 
account for the additional, subsequent maintenance costs which will 
result from longer, heavier trucks. In fact, increasing the weight of a 
heavy truck by only 10 percent increases bridge damage by 33 
percent.\25\ The FHWA estimates that the investment backlog for 
bridges, to address all cost-beneficial bridge needs, is $123.1 
billion.\26\ The U.S. would need to increase annual funding for bridges 
by 20 percent over current spending levels to eliminate the bridge 
backlog by 2032.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of 
Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
    \23\ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
    \24\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study: Bridge 
Structure Comparative Analysis Technical Report, FHWA, June 2015.
    \25\ Effect of Truck Weight on Bridge network Costs, NCHRP Report 
495, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003.
    \26\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 
Conditions and Performance, Chapter 7, p. 7-34, FHWA, 2016.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Raising truck weight or size limits could result in an increased 
prevalence and severity of crashes. Longer trucks come with operational 
difficulties such as requiring more time to pass, having larger blind 
spots, crossing into adjacent lanes, swinging into opposing lanes on 
curves and turns, and taking a longer distance to adequately brake. In 
fact, double trailer trucks have an 11 percent higher fatal crash rate 
than single trailer trucks.\28\ Overweight trucks also pose serious 
safety risk. Not surprisingly, trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds have a 
greater number of brake violations, which are a major reason for out-
of-service violations.\29\ According to a North Carolina study by IIHS, 
trucks with out-of-service violations are 362 percent more likely to be 
involved in a crash.\30\ This is also troubling considering that 
tractor-trailers moving at 60 MPH are required to stop in 310 feet--the 
length of a football field--once the brakes are applied.\31\ Actual 
stopping distances are often much longer due to driver response time 
before braking and the common problem that truck brakes are often not 
in adequate working condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ An Analysis of Truck Size and Weight: Phase I--Safety, 
Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium, November 2013; 
Memorandum from J. Matthews, Rahall Appalachian Transportation 
Institute, Sep. 29, 2014.
    \29\ Roadside Inspections, Vehicle Violations: All Trucks Roadside 
Inspections, Vehicle Violations (2019--Calendar), FMCSA.
    \30\ Teoh E, Carter D, Smith S and McCartt A, Crash risk factors 
for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, Journal of Safety 
Research (2017).
    \31\ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 Part 571 Section 
121: Standard No. 121 Air brake systems (FMVSS 121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is overwhelming opposition to any increases to truck size and 
weight limits. The public, local government officials, safety, consumer 
and public health groups, law enforcement, first responders, truck 
drivers and labor representatives, families of truck crash victims and 
survivors, and even Congress on a bipartisan level have all rejected 
attempts to increase truck size and weight. Also, the technical reports 
released in June 2015 from the U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and 
Weight Study concluded there is a ``profound'' lack of data from which 
to quantify the safety impact of larger or heavier trucks and 
consequently recommended that no changes in the relevant truck size and 
weight laws and regulations be considered until data limitations are 
overcome.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal 
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is clear that increasing truck size and weight will exacerbate 
safety and infrastructure problems, negate potential benefits from 
investments in roads and bridges, and divert rail traffic from 
privately owned freight railroads to our already overburdened public 
highways. Despite claims to the contrary, bigger trucks will not result 
in fewer trucks. Following every past increase to Federal truck size 
and weight, the number of trucks on our roads has gone up. Since 1982, 
when Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit, truck 
registrations have more than doubled.\33\ The U.S. DOT study also 
addressed this meritless assertion and found that any potential mileage 
efficiencies from the use of heavier trucks would be offset in just one 
year.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ 2017 Annual Report.
    \34\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal 
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Congress should oppose any increases to Federal truck 
        size and weight limits, including mandating double 33 feet 
        trailers, pilot programs and state or industry specific 
        exemptions.
    Driver fatigue is a well-known CMV safety problem. The NTSB has 
repeatedly cited fatigue as a major contributor to truck crashes and 
included reducing fatigue related crashes in every edition of its Most 
Wanted List of safety changes since 2016. Currently, truck drivers are 
permitted to drive up to 11 hours per day for a total of 77 hours per 
week. These grueling hours can lead to cumulative fatigue and 
devastating safety consequences. Self-reports of fatigue, which almost 
always underestimate the problem, document that fatigue in truck 
operations is a significant issue. In a 2006 driver survey prepared for 
FMCSA, ``65 percent [of drivers] reported that they often or sometimes 
felt drowsy while driving'' and almost half (47.6 percent) of drivers 
said they had fallen asleep while driving in the previous year.\35\ 
Yet, certain segments of the trucking industry continue to push for 
further weakening of HOS safety regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ 75 FR 82170 (Dec. 29, 2010), citing Dinges, D.F. & Maislin, 
G., ``Truck Driver Fatigue Management Survey,'' May 2006. FMCSA-2004-
19608-3968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the most effective tools to help prevent driver fatigue is 
the use of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) to record drivers' HOS. 
Paper logs are frequently referred to as ``comic books'' throughout the 
industry because of the ease in falsifying actual driving and work 
time. The FMCSA estimates that requiring ELDs will save 26 lives, 
prevent over 500 injuries and avoid over 1,800 crashes annually. The 
U.S. DOT also estimates the annualized net benefits of adopting ELDs to 
be over $1 billion.\36\ Congress, recognizing the benefits of ELDs, 
mandated their use as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century (MAP-21) Act.\37\ In 2015, the FMCSA delivered on this 
Congressional directive and issued a rule requiring the use of ELDs 
which went into effect in December 2017.\38\ FMCSA reports that since 
the implementation of the ELD rule, the percentage of driver 
inspections with an HOS violation has decreased significantly.\39\ 
Despite this compelling evidence, broad support and an established 
final rule, a vocal minority continues to object to the use of this 
technology and is filing meritless applications for exemptions from 
compliance with the Federal law with the FMCSA in a concerted effort to 
undermine the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ 80 FR 78292 (Dec. 16, 2015)
    \37\ Pub. L. 112-141 (2012).
    \38\ 80 FR 78292 (Dec. 16, 2015)
    \39\ FMCSA, Electronic Logging Devices: Improving Safety Through 
Technology, See: https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A barrage of legislative and regulatory proposals also continue to 
target ELDs and HOS rules. For instance, truck drivers hauling 
livestock or insects are currently exempted from having to use ELDs 
pursuant to provisions tucked into the Fiscal Year 2020 Further 
Consolidated Appropriations Act.\40\ Allowing certain haulers to skirt 
the ELD rules jeopardizes the safety of the animals in transport, truck 
drivers and everyone on the roads with them. It also complicates 
enforcement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Pub. L. 116-94 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FMCSA is preparing to issue a final rule that would dismantle 
several important safeguards in the HOS regulations including the 30-
minute rest break provision.\41\ Advocates is especially concerned that 
the FMCSA also eliminated enhanced driver protections for meal and rest 
breaks by issuing a decision preempting California law.\42\ This 
egregious agency overstep should be reversed. Further, special 
interests continue to push Congress to expand working and driving 
limits or create carve-outs under the guise of ``flexibility.'' These 
are nothing more than attempts to force drivers to work even more 
demanding schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ 84 FR 44190 (Aug. 22, 2019).
    \42\ 83 FR 67470 (Dec. 28, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, in 2016, the FMCSA published an ANPRM (Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) requesting information regarding the 
potential benefits of regulatory action to address the safety risks 
posed by CMV drivers who are afflicted with obstructive sleep apnea 
(OSA).\43\ Compelling and consistent research has revealed that drivers 
afflicted with OSA that is not properly treated are more prone to 
fatigue and have a higher crash rate than the general driver 
population. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
considers OSA to be a disqualifying condition unless properly 
treated.\44\ Yet, in August of 2017 the FMCSA withdrew the OSA 
rulemaking without providing any credible analysis or reasoning for 
such an ill-advised course of action.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ 81 FR 12642 (Mar. 10, 2016).
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ 82 FR 37038 (Aug. 8, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: We urge Congress to reject efforts to diminish the rule 
        requiring the use of ELDs and to further erode HOS regulations. 
        Moreover, Congress should direct the FMCSA to issue a rule to 
        ensure that drivers are properly screened for obstructive sleep 
        apnea during the medical examination and that those diagnosed 
        with the condition are receiving the medical treatment 
        necessary to avoid fatigue while operating a CMV on public 
        roads.
    ``Teen Truckers'' pose a major safety threat. Some segments of the 
trucking industry are pushing to allow teenagers to operate CMVs in 
interstate commerce in order to alleviate the alleged ``driver 
shortage.'' A March 2019 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) analysis 
found that ``the labor market for truck drivers works about as well as 
the labor markets for other blue-collar occupations'' and ``a deeper 
look [at the truck industry labor market] does not find evidence of a 
secular shortage.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CMV drivers under the age of 19 are four times more likely to be 
involved in fatal crashes, as compared to CMV drivers who are 21 years 
of age and older, and CMV drivers ages 19-20 are six times more likely 
to be involved in fatal crashes (compared to CMV drivers 21 years and 
older).\47\ This alarming reality is not surprising given that 
generally younger drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal 
crashes because they lack driving experience and skills, and tend to 
take greater risks. Development of the brain region vital to decision 
making, specifically the pre-frontal cortex, may not be fully reached 
until one's mid-20s.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By Driver 
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295 
(1991).
    \48\ Arian, M, et al., Maturation of the adolescent brain, 
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment (Apr. 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Diverse stakeholders including safety groups, law enforcement, 
public health and consumer organizations, truck drivers, some trucking 
companies, and truck crash victims and survivors oppose efforts to 
lower the age to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Additionally, the 
public has overwhelmingly rejected lowering the minimum age for 
interstate truck and bus drivers with 62 percent of respondents in 
opposition, according to a 2020 public opinion poll conducted by 
Engine's Caravan Survey.\49\ Furthermore, in 2001, a petition was filed 
with FMCSA to lower the age at which a person could obtain a CDL to 
operate in interstate commerce from 21 to 18. The FMCSA declined to 
lower the minimum age for an unrestricted CDL because the agency could 
not conclude that the safety performance of younger drivers was on par 
with, or even close to, that of older CMV drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Engine's Caravan Survey Public Opinion Poll (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The public strongly rejected the idea with 96 percent of 
individuals who responded opposing the proposal along with 88 percent 
of the truck drivers and 86 percent of the motor carriers after the 
petition was posted in the Federal Register.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Young Commercial Driver Pilot Training Program, Notice of 
denial of petition to initiate a pilot program, 68 FR 34467, 34469 
(June 9, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Advocates strongly opposes the ``DRIVE-Safe Act'' (S. 569/H.R. 
1374) which would severely jeopardize the safety of all road users by 
putting teenagers behind the wheel of large trucks in interstate 
commerce. Provisions in the bill that at first glance would seem to be 
pro-safety actually could be detrimental. Specifically, certain 
technologies, such as active braking collision mitigation systems and 
speed limiters, are only required during the scant probationary period. 
The result is a teen driver would initially learn to drive in a truck 
fitted with this technology but after the probationary period, s/he 
could get behind the wheel of a truck without any of the safety 
technology and its benefits. The teen driver is then at a safety 
deficit lacking experience in safely operating trucks without the 
technology. Furthermore, the technology will not account for some 
mistakes this age group tends to make. Younger drivers exhibit risky 
behaviors such as increased levels of distraction, following too 
closely, violating traffic rules, and not using seatbelts.\51\ We 
welcome the confirmation that the recommended technology provides 
safety benefits and hope the proponents of the bill will join our 
efforts to accelerate the adoption of proven safety technologies in all 
trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Topics, Teenagers, 
available at: https://www.iihs.org/topics/teenagers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The training proposals in this bill are woefully inadequate. The 
first probationary period only consists of 80 hours of behind-the-wheel 
training which can be completed in a little over one work week while 
abiding by HOS requirements. Further, the 160 hours of driving time in 
the second probationary period can be covered in just an additional two 
weeks. In comparison, the FAA requires pilots working for passenger 
airlines to have approximately 1,500 hours of flight time. These paltry 
training requirements also pale in comparison to other less dangerous 
jobs. For example, Illinois requires a journeyman plumber to have 4 
years of experience as apprentice; Oklahoma requires 4,000 verifiable 
hours of on the job experience for a residential electrical journeyman; 
and, barbers licensed in Nebraska must accumulate 1,800 hours of 
training.
    Additionally, the qualifications for the teen truck driver passing 
the probationary periods are left entirely to the discretion of the 
employer who is incentivized to get the driver on the road as soon as 
possible. No standard tests or evaluations given by an independent 
party are required. Furthermore, a teen truck driver who is involved in 
a crash or is given a citation for a moving violation during the 
probationary periods is not disqualified from continuing to operate a 
truck.
    Driving a truck is already one of the most dangerous occupations, 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Allowing teenagers to 
drive trucks in interstate commerce will only serve to exacerbate and 
export the major problems with truck driver working conditions from a 
state to the entire Nation. Instead of tapping into an unsafe driving 
pool of teenagers, improving upon working conditions should result in 
current, experienced drivers staying on the job and ideally lead to 
being healthier and more fulfilled in their profession as well as 
attracting new applicants to the profession.
Recommendation: Attempts to pull teenagers from high school hallways to 
        high speed highways should be rejected by Congress. We urge 
        members to oppose the DRIVE-Safe Act.
Conclusion
    Truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate. Yet, 
there is a seemingly unending assault on essential Federal regulations 
that protect public safety. Meanwhile, rulemakings which would result 
in proven safety benefits by requiring the installation of lifesaving 
safety systems languish. Advocates urges Congress to require DOT to 
focus on this unfinished safety agenda as the immediate solution to 
reducing deaths and injuries caused by CMV crashes.
    Nearly 5,000 people being killed and 150,000 being injured in truck 
crashes annually cannot continue to be accepted as a societal norm or a 
cost of traveling on our roads and highways. In addition to ``Keep on 
Truckin','' Advocates looks forward to working together with the 
Subcommittee members to both preserve current safeguards and 
regulations and to advance needed improvements so all road users ``Keep 
on Livin'.''
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to 
                               Dawn King
    Background. The safety of our communities should always be our top 
priority. Drunk driving is the number one cause of death on America's 
roadways. Deaths that are 100 percent preventable. Senator Udall and I 
have a bill--the RIDE Act (S. 2604)--that promotes the research and 
development of advanced alcohol detection software and creates a path 
forward to require the technology in new motor vehicles, which could 
save thousands of lives every year.

    Question 1. Have your associations looked at ways to incorporate 
technology like this in commercial trucks?
    Answer. The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) supports the prompt 
enactment of the RIDE Act (S. 2604) and greatly appreciates the 
leadership of Sen. Scott (R-FL) and Sen. Udall (D-NM) in sponsoring 
this legislation. It addresses a critical public health and safety 
issue. Sadly, as the legislation notes, alcohol-impaired driving 
fatalities represent approximately one third of all highway fatalities 
in the United States each year. Operating a commercial motor vehicle 
(CMV) while impaired is a serious public safety issue whether that 
impairment is caused by alcohol, drugs or fatigue.
    In January, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
instituted the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol 
Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse). The Clearinghouse is a nationwide 
repository of failed test results and has been established to help 
ensure that employers provide drivers with adequate evaluation and 
treatment before returning to the cab. In February, FMCSA announced the 
Clearinghouse had detected and identified nearly 8,000 positive 
substance abuse tests within the first weeks of operation. Advanced 
alcohol detection technology that can prevent an impaired individual 
from operating a CMV has the potential to eradicate the scourge of 
drunk driving. Based on TSC's decades of advocating for the placement 
of safety equipment such as automatic emergency braking (AEB) into CMVs 
the most effective avenue to incorporate this technology into trucks is 
to require these systems as standard equipment in all new vehicles.

    Question 2. What can we do to encourage the trucking industry to 
implement life-saving measures like this?
    Answer. As noted above, TSC has worked for decades to incorporate 
life-saving technologies into trucks as a successful strategy to 
preventing crashes and saving lives. The most effective and fastest way 
to get this lifesaving technology and others like automatic emergency 
braking systems, speed limiters and better rear and side underride 
guards in every truck is by directing the U.S. Department of 
Transportation to issue a regulation making it standard equipment on 
all newly manufactured trucks. When the U.S. Department of 
Transportation issues a Federal safety standard requiring safety 
technologies in motor vehicles or motor carriers like airbags, rollover 
prevention technology, rear underride guards, electronic logging 
devices (ELDs) etc. the safety benefits are realized for every person 
and the cost is significantly reduced for every company and every 
independent driver.
    While certain safety conscious carriers and drivers have 
consistently used and promoted the adoption of these systems, many have 
fought their implementation despite clear and convincing industry data 
that demonstrates the effectiveness of the equipment. Opposition 
remains obstinate even when it is shown that these systems also have a 
substantial economic benefit. For example, despite almost 80 percent of 
carriers now using some type of speed limiting technology after 
reporting that they can prevent crashes and reduce operating costs, a 
fringe segment of the industry has fought universal adoption of this 
essential safety equipment. As such, TSC believes that a Federal 
mandate requiring the use of life saving measures, such as was the case 
with ELDs, remains the most effective course of action. This also 
reduces the cost of the equipment which is an additional benefit to the 
industry.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                               Dawn King
    Hours of Service. In August 2019, the Department of Transportation 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to provide additional 
flexibility for commercial drivers. The proposed rule includes 
proposals to allow short haul drivers to be on duty for longer periods 
of time, to allow drivers two extra hours of drive time under certain 
conditions, and to increase flexibility of the rest requirements.

    Question 1. Do the Department of Transportation's proposed changes 
to the Hours of Service Regulations improve safety? What impact do you 
believe the proposed changes will have on safety for all road users?
    Answer.
DOT Proposed Changes Put Industry Profits Ahead of Public Safety
    No, safety will certainly not be improved by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) proposed changes to the Hours-of-Service (HOS) 
regulations. These changes are unwarranted and unwise and will be a 
major safety setback for truck drivers and the general public. The 
Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) strongly opposes this significant 
weakening of the HOS rules especially at a time when fatal truck 
crashes continue to increase unabated and driver fatigue remains a 
major safety problem within the industry for both truck drivers as well 
as families sharing the road with big rigs.
    In 2018, 4,951 people were killed in crashes involving a large 
truck--equivalent to a major airplane crash every week of the year. 
Since 2009, the fatality number has increased by 46 percent. 
Additionally, every year over 100,000 people on average are injured in 
large truck-related crashes. Crashes involving commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) cost society $135 billion in 2017. In fatal two-vehicle 
crashes between a large truck and a passenger motor vehicle, 97 percent 
of the fatalities were occupants of the passenger vehicle.i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \i\ IIHS, Large Trucks, December 2017, available at http://
www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/large-trucks/fatalityfacts/large-trucks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has 
included ``driver fatigue on its Most Wanted List of Transportation 
Safety Improvement for 2019-2020 and has included this critical safety 
issue on its list since 2016. No other mode of transportation has 
experienced such a substantial growth in fatalities. Yet, instead of 
proposing strategies to address this major public health problem, the 
DOT is poised to substantially weaken HOS rules which will likely 
result in even more crashes, deaths and injuries.
    HOS rules are intended to prevent carriers from requiring drivers 
to operate over long duty periods which can cause fatigue and raise the 
risk of crashes. However, over the past decades, segments of the motor 
carrier industry have relentlessly pushed for a rollback in the rules 
or exemptions for special carriers in the name of ``flexibility'' or 
``efficiency.'' These attacks grew tremendously after the electronic 
logging device (ELD) rule, which took effect in December 2017 for most 
drivers. The regulation replaced paper logbooks--often referred to as 
``comic books'' in the industry because they are falsified so 
frequently--with accurate electronic recorders. The striking and candid 
acknowledgment by the FMCSA that the introduction of ELDs, which did 
not change the HOS rules, is a main impetus for this rulemaking is 
revealing in the true intention of the proposal to degrade safety.
    Groundless claims, inaccurate conclusions from research and 
erroneous analysis of data are the basis for the proposed changes by 
the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA). In fact, several 
assertions by the agency in the NPRM directly contradict earlier FMCSA 
findings.
Driver Fatigue is a Known Safety Problem in the Industry and Ignored by 
        the DOT
    Driver fatigue is a well-known commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 
safety problem. Studies show that driver fatigue is a factor in up to 
as many as 13 percent of truck crashes. As previously stated, the NTSB 
has repeatedly cited fatigue as a major contributor to truck crashes 
and included reducing fatigue related crashes on its 2019/2020 Most 
Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements.
    Under the current HOS rules truck drivers can drive up to 11 hours 
per day (within a 14-hour window) after 10 consecutive hours off duty 
for a total of 77 hours per week. These grueling hours can lead to 
cumulative fatigue and devastating safety consequences. In fact, in a 
2006 driver survey prepared for FMCSA, ``65 percent [of drivers] 
reported that they often or sometimes felt drowsy while driving'' and 
almost half (47.6 percent) of drivers said they had fallen asleep while 
driving in the previous year.
    Additionally, research by the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety (IIHS) has found that truck drivers behind the wheel for more 
than eight hours are twice as likely to crash. Truckers' long work 
hours cause sleep deprivation, disruption of normal sleep/rest cycles 
and fatigue.
HOS Changes Proposed by FMCSA will Jeopardize the Safety of Drivers and 
        the Public
    The FMCSA proposes a change to the HOS exemption for adverse 
driving conditions specified in 49 CFR 395.1(b)(1). The present 
exemption allows drivers two additional hours of driving time when 
encountering adverse driving conditions. The proposal would extend the 
driving window from 14 hours to 16 hours when faced with such 
conditions. The FMCSA acknowledges that the Agency has no data or 
research on the impact of the current adverse driving condition rule on 
crash risk or how often it is used by drivers. Nonetheless, the Agency 
is proposing to extend the driving window so that additional driving 
can occur later in the duty period (something already associated with 
increases in crash risk) in response to adverse driving conditions 
(including snow, sleet, fog and ice, conditions which also increase 
crash risk). FMCSA's view of the limitation on the driving window as a 
``penalty'' as opposed to an acknowledgement of the dangers of driving 
later in the duty day and the need for the present limits as 
established by previous rulemakings is deeply misguided and should in 
no way be used as justification for this dangerous and needless 
revision to the current regulation.
Inadequate 30-Minute Break is Under Relentless Attack
    FMCSA proposes to tie the rest break requirement specified in 49 
CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) only to hours driving as opposed to the current 
requirement which is associated with total time on-duty. The Agency 
also proposes that the 30-minute rest break can be taken during on-duty 
not-driving (working) time as opposed to the current rest break 
requirement which dictates that the break must be taken using an off-
duty or sleeper berth period. These revisions will fail to combat acute 
fatigue and will likely force drivers to work entire duty-periods 
without a break.
Back Door Attempts to Extend Driving Time Which Will Increase Fatigue 
        and Crashes
    The NPRM proposes to allow drivers to extend their 14-hour driving 
window (specified by 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)) by using a single off-duty 
break period, ranging from 30 minutes to 3 hours. The proposal will 
result in an extension of the driving window and hence driving later in 
the duty period which is associated with an increased risk of fatigue 
and crashes. With no evidence to support claims that the provision will 
not be abused to address operational inefficiencies from traffic or 
detention time, as opposed to being used to address fatigue itself, 
there is no valid justification for the proposal.

    Question 2. How do you believe hours of service regulations can be 
improved to ensure that our roads are safe for the travelling public?
    Answer. As stated in my testimony, truck driver fatigue is a well-
known and well-researched commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety 
problem. Studies show that driver fatigue is a factor in up to as many 
as 13 percent of truck crashes.
    There are several actions that the FMCSA can take to improve hours 
of service (HOS) regulations. One important step is to require that ALL 
drivers subject to HOS regulations use an electronic logging device or 
ELD.
    Unless Congress rejects persistent and dangerous efforts by special 
trucking interests to secure exemptions and exclusions from HOS rules 
in Federal legislation and at DOT, truck driver fatigue will never be 
seriously or successfully addressed. Under the current HOS rules truck 
drivers can drive up to 11 hours per day (within a 14-hour window) 
after 10 consecutive hours off duty for a total of 77 hours per week. 
This is nearly double the 40-hour work week of most Americans. These 
grueling hours can lead to cumulative fatigue and devastating safety 
consequences. In fact, in a 2006 driver survey prepared for FMCSA, ``65 
percent [of drivers] reported that they often or sometimes felt drowsy 
while driving'' and almost half (47.6 percent) of drivers said they had 
fallen asleep while driving in the previous year.
    One approach to addressing truck driver fatigue is to change the 
compensation system for truck drivers. Currently, truck drivers are 
paid by the mile and not by the hour. Furthermore, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act (FLSA), enacted in 1938, provides an exception for 
employees of the motor carrier industry. As a result of this drivers do 
not get paid overtime for working more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a 
week. This is further exacerbated by the fact that truck drivers, for 
the most part, also load and unload their freight, in addition to 
driving long hours. This compensation scheme has created a system where 
truck drivers are encouraged to drive as far and as fast as they can in 
order to meet unreasonable and unsafe delivery times.
    One of the major contributions to advancing motor carrier safety 
would be for Congress to repeal the FLSA exemption for the motor 
carrier industry. This situation is ripe for abuse by companies to 
force drivers to drive long hours and long distances with unreasonable 
demands and deadlines. As a result, truck drivers are falling asleep 
behind the wheel. This is exactly the scenario that resulted in my 
father's death.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to 
                               Dawn King
    Fatigue: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has 
repeatedly cited fatigue as a contributing factor in crashes involving 
commercial vehicles. Drivers with less than seven hours of sleep can 
face crash risks similar to alcohol-impaired driving.

    Question 1. What steps should Congress consider to help reduce the 
number of fatigue-related crashes?
    Answer. Every day on average, 13 people are killed, and more than 
400 people are injured in large truck crashes and driver fatigue is a 
major contributing cause. These fatalities are equivalent to a major 
airplane crash every other week of the year.
    As I stated in my testimony, my family is the victim of a horrific 
crash caused by a trucker who fell asleep at the wheel and killed my 
father, Bill Badger on December 23, 2004--2 days before Christmas. He 
was on his way to the airport to catch a plane to spend the holidays 
with us.
    Overall truck crash deaths and injuries, including those that are 
fatigue-related, can be significantly reduced and mitigated with 
commonsense Federal actions. These include a variety of strategies such 
as changing the compensation system for truck drivers by removing the 
exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the motor 
carrier industry, requiring lifesaving technologies on all trucks, and 
strongly rejecting all attempts in Congress and at DOT to roll back 
safety laws by allowing unwarranted exemptions to HOS and ELD rules. 
Furthermore, Congress should oppose lowering the minimum age of 21 for 
interstate commercial drivers and allowing bigger, heavier and longer 
monster trucks on our streets and roads.
    We urge Congress to reject all efforts to enact special interest 
exemptions and rollbacks to HOS rules and the requirement for 
electronic logging devices (ELDs). In addition, we support Federal 
safety standards requiring trucks be equipped with effective and 
affordable safety technologies that already are required on trucks in 
other countries. These include:

   Speed Limiter Requirement

     From 2004 to 2013, 10,440 people killed in crashes 
            where the speed of the CMV likely contributed to the 
            severity of the crash (FMCSA)

     More than 1,000 lives lost on average annually to 
            speeding CMVs.

     2012: NTSB recommended equipping CMVs with the 
            technology.

    TSC strongly supports enactment of the Cullum Owings Large Truck 
Safe Operating Speed Act (S. 2033) which requires speed limiters on all 
new trucks. Additionally, all trucks already equipped with speed 
limiting devices but are not using the technology must activate them 
and all speed limiters be set at a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per 
hour.

   Crash Avoidance Technology

     Automatic emergency braking (AEB) can prevent and 
            mitigate crashes in which a large truck is the striking 
            vehicle.

     According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
            Administration (NHTSA), from 2003 through 2008, large 
            trucks were the striking vehicle in approximately 32,000 
            rear-end crashes resulting in 300 fatalities and injuring 
            over 15,000 people annually.

     The NHTSA estimated in 2012 that fleetwide adoption of 
            advanced AEB systems in CMVs could save 166 lives per year 
            and prevent 8,361 injuries. Furthermore, the National 
            Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended that AEB 
            systems be required on all highway vehicles.

     In 2015, TSC and other safety groups filed a petition 
            with NHTSA to issue a rule requiring AEB on all CMVs. NHTSA 
            granted the petition but there has been no further 
            regulatory action.

    TSC urges Congress to pass the Protecting Roadside First Responders 
Act (S. 2700/H.R. 4871) and the Safe Roads Act of 2019 (H.R. 3773) to 
require NHTSA to set a minimum performance standard and issue a rule 
requiring CMVs be equipped with AEB.

   Underride Crashes

     In 2016, 424 of the 2,056 passenger vehicle occupants 
            killed in large truck crashes died when their vehicles 
            struck the rear of a large truck. It's not known how many 
            of these were underride crashes.

     A 2010 analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway 
            Safety (IIHS) of fatal crashes involving the rear of a 
            truck found that 82 percent involved underride.

     Technology is currently available which can 
            significantly increase the likelihood that individuals can 
            survive violent crashes during which a motor vehicle 
            travels under the rear or side of a truck trailer.

    TSC strongly supports enactment of The Stop Underrides Act (S. 665/
H.R. 1511). This bipartisan legislation requires current Federal 
standards for rear underride guards to be upgraded as well as requires 
the installation of side and front guards.

   Improve Training Requirements for Entry-Level Drivers

     Currently there is no Federal requirement that 
            Commercial Driver's License (CDL) candidates receive a 
            minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel instruction as 
            part of entry-level driver training. Adequate training 
            requirements are needed for CDL applicants.

     In 2015 the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory 
            Committee comprised of industry, law enforcement drivers 
            and safety groups endorsed a minimum number of hours of 
            behind-the-wheel training be established but this important 
            recommendation was stripped from the final rule issued by 
            FMCSA.

    TSC recommends that Congress enact a legislative requirement to 
include this important aspect of the rule.

   Restore Public Accessibility of Safety Data

     Fatal crashes occur at an alarmingly high rate with 
            insufficient accountability.

     FMCSA's Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) 
            program evaluates the safety and compliance of motor 
            carriers and is designed to identify high risk operations 
            for intervention and improvement.

     Involvement in previous truck crashes and regardless 
            of ``fault'' is an accurate predictor of involvement in 
            future truck crashes.

     Some of the CSA data was removed from public view as 
            part of the FAST Act.

    TSC supports adoption of provisions in the FY2020 House THUD bill 
that would restore public access to this important data.

   Truck Safety will be Seriously Jeopardized for Everyone by 
        Allowing Teen Truckers in Interstate Commerce.

     CMV drivers under the age of 19 are four times more 
            likely to be involved in fatal crashes, as compared to CMV 
            drivers who are 21 years of age and older, and CMV drivers 
            ages 19-20 are six times more likely to be involved in 
            fatal crashes (compared to CMV drivers 21 years and older). 
            This alarming reality is not surprising given that 
            generally younger drivers are more likely to be involved in 
            fatal crashes because they lack driving experience and 
            skills and tend to take greater risks.

     The public overwhelmingly rejects lowering the minimum 
            age for interstate truck and bus drivers. According to a 
            recent 2020 public opinion poll by Engine's Caravan Survey 
            62 percent of respondents oppose lowering the minimum age 
            from 21 to 18.

     In 2001, a petition was filed with FMCSA to lower the 
            CDL minimum age to 18 years old. The FMCSA declined the 
            petition because the agency could not conclude that the 
            safety performance of younger drivers was on par with, or 
            even close to, that of older CMV drivers.

     So-called pro-safety provisions in the DRIVE-Safe Act, 
            (S. 569/H.R. 1374) are inadequate and could be detrimental. 
            For example, technologies such as active braking collision 
            mitigation systems and speed limiters, are only required 
            during a brief probationary period. A teen driver would 
            initially learn to drive in a truck fitted with this 
            technology but after the probationary period there is no 
            guarantee that the teen trucker would be operating a truck 
            with any of the safety technology and its benefits.

    TSC strongly opposes enactment of the DRIVE-Safe Act, (S. 569/H.R. 
1374) which would lower the age for an Interstate CDL from 21 to 18.

   Increasing the Minimum Level of Insurance will Increase 
        Safety

     The minimum level of insurance of $750,000 for 
            commercial motor carriers has not been increased in the 
            U.S. in 40 years. Neither has it been adjusted for 
            inflation or, more appropriately, for medical cost 
            inflation. Consequently, some families not only face the 
            physical and emotion hardship of losing a loved one but 
            also the financial devastation caused by under-insured 
            motor carriers.

     According to the legislative intent of the Motor 
            Carrier Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96-296), minimum levels of 
            insurance were meant to serve as a barrier to entry for 
            unsafe carriers and to shift the burden of oversight from 
            the government to the private sector (i.e., the insurers). 
            Sadly, insurers fail to apply appropriate scrutiny because 
            the amounts are so abysmally low.

    TSC urges Senate introduction of companion legislation and passage 
of House legislation, the INSURANCE Act, H.R. 3781, which increases 
this minimum to account for medical cost inflation and then index it to 
that measure every five years.

    Safety Technologies. Technologies like emergency braking and lane-
departure warnings can improve safety and reduce the number of crashes 
on our roadway.

    Question 2. What can Congress or NHTSA do to ensure drivers, 
especially commercial vehicle drivers, become more familiar and 
confident using these safety technologies?
    Answer. Many companies already are equipping their truck fleets 
with affordable and available crash avoidance technologies like 
automatic emergency braking (AEB), speed limiters, and lane departure 
warning that are working well by reducing certain crashes and readily 
accepted by drivers. In fact, a 2007 survey of truck drivers by IIHS 
found 64 percent of drivers were in favor of a truck speed governor 
requirement. Requiring each of these technologies as standard equipment 
in all new trucks will achieve the dual goals of providing more 
familiarity to drivers and confidence in their use.
    Establishing a regulatory standard for each technology ensures that 
no matter the differences in each individual system it must meet 
minimum performance requirements. Thus, no matter what cab a truck 
driver gets into, the operator knows the system will perform as 
intended. Additionally, the best and most effective way to increase 
familiarity with any technology is to increase use. By requiring these 
systems in all new trucks, drivers will gain even more invaluable 
experience with these lifesaving and highly effective technologies.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                               Dawn King
    The lack of information about national road restrictions on 
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers 
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units 
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or 
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger 
traffic but do not currently make information about national road 
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials 
available to users.
    As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these 
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can 
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage 
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
    As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can 
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution 
is found.
    In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial 
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road. 
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways 
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King 
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last 
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped 
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar 
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
    I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely 
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their 
route. So far, their response is inadequate, and they do not seem to 
appreciate the gravity of this issue.

    Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this 
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively 
deal with the presence of trucks on roads with posted restrictions.
    Answer. There are several actions that can address the presence of 
trucks on roads with posted restrictions. First, Congress should reject 
any further exemptions from Federal truck size and weight limits. These 
misguided loopholes have resulted in a dangerous patchwork of 
regulations making it exceedingly difficult for truck drivers to 
determine what routes permit certain types of configurations and loads. 
Second, these incidents highlight the need for better training for new 
truck drivers. Specifically, effective pre-trip planning. Establishing 
the correct route is an essential part of pre-trip planning that every 
truck driver should undertake before embarking. In addition, as noted 
in the question, more funding for states to post signage informing 
drivers of restrictions is also important. Finally, several safety 
technologies can also help to ameliorate this problem. Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure (V2I) technology can provide drivers with timely 
information about the roads they are travelling including any 
restrictions on the weight or height of the vehicle. Also, automatic 
emergency braking (AEB) which can stop a vehicle before it strikes an 
object could help avoid or mitigate crashes such as the tragedy that 
occurred in 2017 in Greenwich. Again, AEB should be standard equipment 
on all trucks. It will not only avert crashes resulting in property 
damage, but more importantly, it will save lives.

    Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and 
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to 
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech 
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and 
preventative warnings?
    Answer. Outside of the direct engagement with tech companies, the 
countermeasures and solutions outlined above can help to address this 
issue. In addition, several truck specific navigations systems that are 
currently available alert drives to road restrictions such as those 
related the height and weight of the vehicle.

    The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was 
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In 
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum 
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many 
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side 
brace system was 252 pounds.

    Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing 
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also 
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and 
manufacturers across America?
    Answer. TSC strongly supports enactment of S. 665, the Stop 
Underrides Act, and appreciate the co-sponsorship of Sen. Blumenthal 
for this important truck safety bill. When the U.S. Department of 
Transportation issues a Federal safety standard requiring safety 
technologies in motor vehicles or motor carriers like airbags, rollover 
prevention technology, rear underride guards, electronic logging 
devices (ELDs) etc. the safety benefits are realized for every person, 
the costs are significantly reduced for every company and every 
independent driver and the technology frequently contributes to the 
U.S. economy.
    With America facing the prospect of a significant economic downturn 
due to the Coronavirus pandemic it will be essential that we preserve 
and create manufacturing jobs in the United States. In addition, 
standardization of a technology also significantly lowers manufacturing 
costs because of the increase in the scale of production. A Federal 
standard is a win/win result for safety, motor carrier companies and 
drivers and U.S. economy.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                              Chris Spear
    Question 1. On the issues of illegal drug use and highway safety, 
could you please elaborate for the subcommittee on your concerns 
regarding the industry's inability to use hair testing as a federally 
accepted drug testing method?
    Answer. Thank you for the question Chairman Fischer. As you know, 
across the country, we are confronted by widespread drug abuse, and, in 
particular, over the past few years, have seen the outbreak of an 
opioid epidemic. The fact that FMCSA's newly established Drug and 
Alcohol Clearinghouse registered more than 8,000 DOT drug and alcohol 
violations in less than its first two months of operation confirms that 
this remains an ongoing challenge to road safety.
    To confront the issue of illegal drug use head on, many proactive 
trucking companies have adopted hair testing as a tool to detect drug 
abuse into their company policies. Despite the benefits of hair 
testing, which include a longer detection window compared to 
traditional urinalysis, ease of collection, and a decreased likelihood 
of an adulterated sample, hair testing is not a federally-accepted 
alternative drug testing method.
    As you also know, the FAST Act, which was enacted in December 2015, 
mandated that HHS issue technical guidelines for the adoption of hair 
testing as a federally-accepted alternative drug testing method within 
1 year of the bill's enactment. Unfortunately, that deadline, which was 
December 4, 2016, is now well over 3 years past due! While we were 
pleased that HHS recently submitted proposed guidelines for OMB review 
this past summer, each day we delay taking the necessary steps to 
include hair testing as a federally-accepted drug testing method, our 
roads are less safe. This continued delay is extremely disturbing, and 
I implore the agency to finalize these critical safety guidelines.

    Question 2. As you noted in your testimony, it has been three years 
since this committee, and the FAST Act, instructed HHS to issue such 
rules. Can you elaborate further on the trucking industry's concerns 
for this ongoing delay, and recommendations for this subcommittee on 
what steps should be taken to advance this issue?
    Answer. This ongoing delay undermines the potential for FMCSA's 
newly-established Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol 
Clearinghouse to fully capture the breadth of drivers who are 
prohibited from operating a CMV based on DOT drug and alcohol program 
violations. Federal recognition of hair testing as an accepted 
alternative drug testing method would give motor carriers the ability 
to report positive hair test results to drivers' subsequent prospective 
employers through FMCSA's CDL Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. This 
would be a significant step towards greater road safety, and, 
unfortunately, one that our industry is unable to take until hair 
testing is recognized as a federally-accepted drug testing method.
    For that reason, as well as the ones raised above, ATA continues to 
urge Congress and the subcommittee to increase its engagement and 
oversight with HHS to provide hair testing guidelines, which will 
provide trucking companies with an extremely effective safety tool. 
Moreover, the guidelines should align with the Congressional directive 
included in the FAST Act.

    Question 3. The FAST Act required FMCSA to remove the Safety 
Measurement System scores from public view due to flaws in the system. 
FMCSA is currently reviewing other options for gathering and 
interpreting enforcement data as part of its SMS program. What impact 
would SMS scores have on your members if that information is available 
publically before FMCSA is able to complete its review and update the 
system?
    Answer. First and foremost, thank you Chairman Fischer for your 
relentless efforts to reform and improve the CSA program. As you are 
likely aware, while ATA has been generally supportive of the CSA 
program, ATA remains fundamentally opposed to the publication of CSA 
Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores until peer-reviewed research 
confirms a strong, statistically significant relationship between 
individual motor carriers' scores and future crash risk. This is 
because third parties, including shippers, brokers, insurers, banks, 
and others, have come to rely on these scores to make safety-based 
business decisions, despite identified shortcomings that undermine the 
accuracy of CSA's relative scoring system. Publishing inaccurate and 
misleading SMS scores does not accomplish the fundamental goal of the 
program, which is to identify and ultimately predict motor carriers 
that pose the greatest risk to safety. ATA firmly believes that 
decisions and determinations regarding safety should be firmly rooted 
in reliable, credible data, and until FMCSA can confirm with certainty 
that their SMS methodology is accurate, the flawed datasets should 
remain unavailable to the public.
    Publicizing SMS scores prematurely would ultimately roll back your 
important legislative efforts in the FAST Act to repair the flawed CSA 
scoring system--a system that both the GAO and NAS found to be 
inaccurate due to its reliance on incomplete and unsound data to 
develop motor carrier safety scores. Your language included in the FAST 
Act directed a full diagnostics and reboot of the CSA system, which 
FMCSA has undertaken and continues to implement. Our hope and 
expectation is that the revised scoring system is not made public until 
FMCSA is able to complete its review and update the system.

    Background: Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving 
facilities beyond an agreed on amount of time, known as detention time. 
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in 
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on 
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay 
for the driver.

    Question 4. What efforts are currently being taken by trucking 
stakeholders to work with shippers to lower detention time?
    Answer. As an initial matter, it is important to note that the 
conclusions of the 2018 DOT Inspector General report were based on data 
that was collected before a Congressional mandate, which required most 
commercial drivers to record their limited duty hours using tamperproof 
electronic devices tied to their truck's engine control module, went 
into effect. Thus, the conclusions the Inspector General drew about the 
impact of detention time on safety are of limited value today. 
Excessive detention time could theoretically impact safety when drivers 
are incentivized to make up time that they ``lost'' to detention by 
working beyond the hours-of-service parameters that FMCSA has 
determined are consistent with highway safety. Before the introduction 
of electronic logging devices to record a driver's hours of service, 
most drivers recorded their duty hours with pencil and paper and could 
avoid those limits relatively easily. By contrast, today's electronic 
logging devices are not easily falsified. Thus, the IG's conclusions 
about the effects of detention time on safety do not consider the 
technological advancements that most drivers utilize today on a daily 
basis, and therefore do not represent the current operating 
environment.
    Absent another option, carriers typically use financial tactics to 
minimize detention time at shipper facilities. Carriers do this by 
charging some of the costs associated with detention time back to the 
shipper in the form of fees for excessive detention. Detention charges 
are a market-based mechanism that provide incentives to the shipper to 
remedy such inefficiencies at customer facilities. However, in the 
highly competitive trucking industry, many motor carriers do not have 
the leverage to shift detention time costs to their customers. In these 
instances, shippers are unmotivated to improve the efficiency of their 
operations and truck drivers are powerless to seek remediation.

    Question 5. Are there steps that Congress could take to address 
this issue without heavy-handed mandates?
    Answer. In general, ATA does not believe this market efficiency 
problem can be solved by Congressional mandates. The Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration is currently seeking to collect data that 
will help better quantify and understand the magnitude of the detention 
time program. (See Docket FMCSA-2019-0054.) In ATA's view, if those or 
similar efforts are successful in developing a clearer picture of the 
problem, as well as the costs it imposes on the supply chain, they may 
allow primary stakeholders--motor carriers and shippers--to more 
effectively bargain for market-based mitigation solutions.
    However, when the shipper is the government and/or shipper 
terminals are housed within government-owned or -controlled facilities, 
Congress may be in a position to directly promote efficiencies that 
will benefit the entire supply chain. In the first case--the shipment 
of government freight--Congress could promote efficiency by requiring 
government shippers to bear some or all of the costs of detention that 
they impose on carriers. In the case of secure government facilities, 
Congress can ensure that uniform procedures and credentialing 
requirements mitigate intake bottlenecks. In the second case--ports or 
other access-controlled major facilities--additional infrastructure 
investments, as well as uninform credentialing requirements, would 
translate to increased capacity and less detention time for motor 
carriers.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to 
                              Chris Spear
    Background: The safety of our communities should always be our top 
priority.
    Drunk driving is the number one cause of death on America's 
roadways. Deaths that are 100 percent preventable. Senator Udall and I 
have a bill--the RIDE Act (S. 2604)--that promotes the research and 
development of advanced alcohol detection software and creates a path 
forward to require the technology in new motor vehicles, which could 
save thousands of lives every year.

    Question 1. Mr. Spear and Ms. King, have your associations looked 
at ways to incorporate technology like this in commercial trucks?
    Answer. Senator Scott, first let me thank you for bringing 
attention to this important issue, and for your work with Senator Udall 
on the RIDE Act. Drunk driving continues to be a leading cause of 
fatalities on our Nation's roads, and the trucking industry shares your 
concern for this, and all other causes of road fatalities.
    ATA and the trucking industry strongly support the research and 
development of safety technology like advanced alcohol detection 
software. In fact, many ATA members currently have trucks equipped with 
alcohol detection devices, and we support those members who choose to 
install this technology in efforts to improve safety.
    Additionally, there are several driver impairment prevention 
technology suppliers in the industry that are expanding in-cab advanced 
safety features which monitor, detect, and alert drivers and 
supervisors of necessary corrective actions. ATA continues to 
collaborate with suppliers as well as motor carriers to determine steps 
that the industry can take to better incorporate technology in 
commercial trucks.

    Question 2. What can we do to encourage the trucking industry to 
implement life-saving measures like this?
    Answer. As mentioned above, many ATA members have already begun 
implementing alcohol detection devices and other in-cab advanced safety 
features. Additionally, ATA is currently working with the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration on a long-term commercial vehicle 
advanced safety technology program with a focus on making the trucking 
industry safer. The program is called ``Tech-Celerate Now,'' and its 
mission is to equip all commercial trucks with available advanced 
safety technologies that have industry-recognized safety benefits, but 
are not required by law. This agency and stakeholder collaboration will 
both encourage and incentivize the trucking industry to implement 
important, life-saving vehicle technologies, and ATA encourages Members 
of Congress to support models like the Tech-Celerate Now program to 
further promote innovation aimed at improving the safety of our 
Nation's roads and bridges.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                              Chris Spear
    Freight Movement. Trucks moved nearly 12 billion tons of cargo in 
2018--over 60 percent of our Nation's freight. That number is expected 
to increase to nearly 13.8 billion tons by 2030. But our current 
infrastructure is in disrepair--the American Society of Engineers 
estimate that the lack of investment in our surface transportation 
system costs households and businesses nearly $147 billion a year.
    Truckers are spending valuable time they could be otherwise moving 
goods sitting in miles of traffic due to congestion at our Nation's 
ports and blocked grade crossings. Infrastructure reforms must be a 
high priority if we are going to keep our trucks moving and cut down on 
freight congestion.

    Question 1. Do you agree that we should lift the multimodal cap in 
the INFRA program in order to address congestion at multimodal 
connectors? Why or why not?
    . Answer. Lifting the cap would actually reduce the amount of money 
available for connector roadways, and ATA therefore opposes lifting the 
cap or otherwise increasing the amount of money available for non-
highway projects under INFRA. Reducing the amount of INFRA money 
available to address these deficiencies by funneling money away from 
roadway projects would eliminate a key revenue source for these 
critical arteries. Furthermore, grade crossing projects are eligible 
under INFRA. Therefore lifting the cap would not increase the money 
available for grade crossings.
    While intermodal connectors are an essential part of the freight 
distribution system, many are neglected and are not given the financial 
attention they deserve in spite of their importance to the Nation's 
economy. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), just 9 
percent of freight intermodal connectors are in good or very good 
condition, 19 percent are in mediocre condition, and 37 percent are in 
poor condition. Furthermore, FHWA found that congestion on freight 
intermodal connectors causes 1,059,238 hours of truck delay annually, 
and 12,181,234 hours of automobile delay. The average speed on a 
connector in poor condition is 22 percent lower than on connectors in 
fair or better condition. Congestion on freight intermodal connectors 
adds nearly $71 million to freight transportation costs each year. We 
urge Congress to set aside adequate funding for freight intermodal 
connectors to ensure that these critical arteries are given the 
attention and resources they deserve.

    Truck Parking. I have heard from many of my constituents in law 
enforcement and the trucking community that truck parking is a huge 
challenge. In my home state of Washington, 46 percent of truck drivers 
say they drive fatigued as a result of insufficient parking. When truck 
stops are full, or when there is inadequate parking available, trucks 
often park on highway ramps or shoulders, creating a safety risk for 
all road users.
    Parking in unsafe areas also puts truck drivers at risk. A Federal 
survey found that 90 percent of drivers have struggled to find safe 
parking at night, and according to a Washington Department of 
Transportation study, 59 percent of truckers reported they are 
frequently concerned with safety--day or night.
    This is also an issue of freight mobility. With trucks lined up for 
miles waiting to get into our ports and across grade crossings, that is 
time that could be otherwise spent moving goods across the country. 
With freight movement expected to rise 40 percent in the next decade--
up to $26 trillion--we have to address this issue if we're going to 
keep our economy moving in the right direction.

    Question 2. How should we be addressing the issue of truck parking 
in a transportation reauthorization bill?
    Answer. Insufficient truck parking is an issue that unites the 
entire trucking industry. Several prominent trucking organizations, 
including the American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator 
Independent Drivers Association, all support H.R. 6104, the Truck 
Parking Safety Improvement Act, and would strongly encourage the bill's 
inclusion in a transportation reauthorization bill. H.R. 6104, was 
recently introduced by Representatives Bost (R-IL) and Craig (D-MN), 
and would dedicate existing highway funding to projects that expand 
truck parking capacity. This legislation would establish a competitive 
discretionary grant program and allot hundreds of millions of dollars 
in existing highway safety program funding for truck parking projects 
across the Nation.
    While truck parking is eligible for funding under the Federal-aid 
highway program, parking projects are rarely given priority due to the 
lack of overall funding for other core highway programs. Absent Federal 
investment in truck parking capacity expansion, shortages will become 
even more severe, decreasing safety for all highway motorists.

    Teen Drivers. The American Trucking Associations support the DRIVE 
Act, which would allow drivers under the age of 21 operate interstate 
commercial vehicles. This legislation would require teen drivers to 
obtain behind the wheel training, as well as, require trucks they are 
trained in to be equipped with safety technology such as automatic 
emergency brakes.

    Question 3. Are you concerned that teen drivers, who would be 
trained on trucks with advanced safety technologies, may not be fully 
prepared to drive a commercial vehicle that is not equipped with 
advanced safety technology?
    Answer. The American Trucking Associations is not at all concerned 
about the qualifications or capabilities of these highly-trained 
younger drivers. Currently, 18 to 20-year-old drivers are permitted to 
drive commercial vehicles not equipped with advanced safety technology 
in forty-nine states and the District of Columbia. By the nature of 
this fact, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have already 
determined that 18 to 20-year-old drivers are safe and mature enough to 
obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL) and drive trucks intrastate. 
Curiously, this same confidence in 18 to 20-year-old drivers does not 
extend to interstate commerce, though all other variables remain the 
same. If anything, the DRIVE Safe Act should make lawmakers more 
confident in the safety performance by 18, 19, and 20-year-old 
interstate drivers relative to their similarly-aged intrastate driving 
counterparts--the latter of whom are not required to have their CMVs 
equipped with the DRIVE Safe Act's vehicle safety technologies, which 
have the potential to prevent or significantly reduce the number and 
severity of crashes.
    Moreover, in current practice, our Nation's military allows 18-, 
19-, and 20-year-old service members to operate heavy-duty machinery, 
equipment, and vehicles. With properly-designed training--which may or 
may not include the use of advanced driver assistance features--a great 
many U.S. sailors operate much more complex equipment than a heavy-duty 
vehicle, including $4 billion aircraft carriers.\1\ Such is the case 
for a large segment of the armed forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Month, 2018 Talking Points, 
https://aircraftcar
rier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Talking-Points-2018.pdf, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite myriad examples of 18, 19, and 20-year-old servicemembers 
with whom we entrust our national security and defense, some argue,\2\ 
in essence, that there is something intrinsic about 18, 19, and 20-
year-olds that somehow renders them inherently unsafe--and thus, 
categorically incapable of being trained to operate CMVs safely in 
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Todd Spencer, OOIDA, August 9, 2019, Docket ID FMCSA-2018-0346-
1020, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0346-1020; 
Lorraine Martin, National Safety Council, June 14, 2019, Docket ID 
FMCSA-2018-0346-0308, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-
2018-0346-0308; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), May 21, 
2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-515, https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-0515; Advocates of Highway and Auto Safety, 
May 21, 2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-1466, https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-1466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2015, Congress correctly and soundly rejected this notion when 
it passed the FAST Act, which was signed by President Obama on December 
4, 2015--mandating, among other things, the Under 21 Military Pilot 
Program \3\--which, as we understand it, unfortunately has not yet been 
able to gather enough eligible participating drivers to generate 
reportable data. However, the very premise of the Under 21 Military 
Pilot is the recognition that certain 18, 19, and 20-year-olds, with 
proper training, can learn how to operate commercial motor vehicles 
(CMVs) safely in interstate commerce. ATA fully supports and agrees 
with this premise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 83 Fed. Reg. 31633 (July 6, 2018).

    Question 4. What data exists demonstrating that drivers under the 
age of 21 are as safe as, or safer, than drivers 21 years old and 
older, and how does that data reflect on or translate to the cross-
country or long-distance routes that the DRIVE Act would permit for 
those drivers?
    Answer. As I stated in my testimony, forty-nine states and the 
District of Columbia already allow 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old commercial 
driver's license (CDL) holders to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce. 
Most of these drivers for whom comparative data is available appear to 
already achieve equivalent--if not superior--levels of safety than that 
of their older counterparts on critical safety measures such as crash 
rates, particularly when compared to drivers aged 21, 22, 23, and 24, 
with whom they are closest in age.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ These two age groups are the ones selected by the Agency for 
comparison of safety performance in the Under 21 Military Pilot 
Program, and ATA would recommend that FMCSA similarly design the pilot 
program that is the subject of this Notice by comparing the safety 
performance of 18-20 year old interstate drivers (Covered Drivers) with 
that of 21-24 year old interstate drivers (Control Group).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This pattern is consistent with broader trends in Federal crash 
data encompassing passenger vehicles as well as CMVs. Specifically, 
according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
(NHTSA) Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, in each of the past six 
years for which NHTSA has data--i.e., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 
2017--male drivers in the 16-20 age range had a lower involvement rate 
in fatal crashes than male drivers in the 21-24 age range.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety 
Facts Annual Report, Table 62, Driver Involvement Rates per 100,000 
Licensed Drivers by Age, Sex, and Crash Severity, https://
cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm#; see also Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, 
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. (showing that ninety-four percent 
of truck drivers are male).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Significantly, these 18-to-20-year-old drivers operating CMVs in 
intrastate commerce are already achieving this baseline level of safety 
without the benefit of having trained under the enhanced training and 
technology standards of the DRIVE Safe Act. Thus, if Congress were to 
enact the DRIVE Safe Act, lawmakers should have every expectation to 
observe similar, if not better, safety performance by 18-, 19-, and 20-
year-old interstate drivers relative to their older counterparts--the 
latter of whom are not required to have their CMVs equipped with the 
DRIVE Safe Act's vehicle safety technologies, which have the potential 
to prevent or significantly reduce the number and severity of crashes.

 Table 1--Driver Involvement Rates In Fatal Crashes Per 100,000 Licensed
                                 Drivers
                       By Age and Sex (2012-2017)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Male
      Year             Age      ----------------------------------------
                                      Drivers         Involvement Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012             16-20           2,962              48.53
                --------------------------------------------------------
                 21-24           3,539              49.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013             16-20           2,767              44.23
                --------------------------------------------------------
                 21-24           3,440              47.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014             16-20           2,697              45.28
                --------------------------------------------------------
                 21-24           3,510              48.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015             16-20           2,944              49.28
                --------------------------------------------------------
                 21-24           3,723              51.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016             16-20           3,090              50.72
                --------------------------------------------------------
                 21-24           3,897              53.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017             16-20           2,993              49.02
                --------------------------------------------------------
                 21-24           3,655              50.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this data does not isolate the safety performance of CMV 
drivers versus that of passenger vehicle drivers, the data does 
contradict the tired argument that drivers under the age of 21 as a 
whole are somehow inherently less safe than drivers 21 years old and 
above. This most recent NHTSA data from 2012 through 2017 also serves 
to properly contextualize and allay concerns associated with older 
NHTSA data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Governors Highway Safety Association, July 11, 2019, Document 
ID FMCSA-2018-0346-0379, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-
2018-0346-0379 (citing, to support most of its arguments, a GHSA 
analysis of older NHTSA data, while correctly pointing out that ``many 
studies have also documented that most truck crashes involving 
passenger vehicles are the fault of the passenger motorist''), at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If anything, the abovementioned pattern of data established in each 
of the past six years with respect to the most severe form of crashes--
i.e., those involving a fatality--suggests that 18, 19 and 20-year-old 
drivers as a group may be safer than drivers aged 21, 22, 23, and 24. 
Further supporting this impression in the CMV context (in light of the 
abovementioned NHTSA data concerning male drivers) is that ninety-four 
percent of truck drivers are male.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the 
Current Population Survey, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.

    Question 5. Your testimony points to a driver shortage in the 
trucking industry. How many new drivers, who would not have otherwise 
entered the industry, do you estimate will enter the industry because 
of the DRIVE Act?
    Answer. Over the past 15 years, the trucking industry has struggled 
with a shortage of truck drivers. First documented in 2005, the 
shortage was roughly 20,000 workers. By the end of 2018, the truck 
driver shortage reached a new record high of 60,800 qualified 
applicants. ATA cannot provide the exact figure for how much of the gap 
DRIVE Safe covers, but one thing is certain: it prepares America's 
workforce today for its need's tomorrow.
    Over the next decade, the trucking industry will need to hire 
roughly 1.1 million new drivers, or an average of nearly 110,000 per 
year. Replacing retiring truck drivers will be by far the largest 
factor, accounting for over half of new driver hires (54 percent). The 
second largest factor will be industry growth, accounting for 25 
percent of new driver hires. As an industry and a nation, we need to be 
reaching drivers earlier in their careers--equipping them with the 
skills and training necessary to safely and efficiently operate on 
America's roadways. The DRIVE Safe Act begins that transition and can 
help close the gap in skills and opportunity that currently challenge 
our industry in the years ahead.
    There are many reasons for the current driver shortage, but one of 
the largest factors is the relatively high average age of the existing 
workforce. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average age 
of a commercial truck driver in the U.S. is 55 years old. Today, motor 
carriers struggle to find enough qualified drivers, which makes the 
impact of the shortage seem much worse than the numbers in this report. 
Many carriers, despite being short drivers, are highly selective in 
hiring drivers because they have made safety and professionalism their 
highest priorities.
    ATA has consistently argued that the driver shortage is one of 
finding qualified drivers.\8\ In 2012 and 2015, for example, ATA 
reported in its Driver Shortage Analyses that 88 percent of fleets said 
they were getting enough applicants, but most were simply not 
qualified.\9\ ATA reported further that ``the shortage probably feels 
much worse to most trucking companies because of their hiring 
standards. Because of many companies' strong focus on safety, many 
otherwise eligible candidates are disqualified as a result of poor 
driving history or other related factors.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 
2015, https://www
.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/News%20and%20Information/
Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statis
tics/10%206%2015%20ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202015.pdf, at 3; 
American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2017, 
http://progressive1.acs.play
stream.com/truckline/progressive/
ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202017.pdf, at 3.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ ATA Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2015, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given that most carriers find most driver candidates over the age 
of 21 to be unqualified, it would not be surprising if most carriers 
also found most driver candidates under the age of 21 to be unqualified 
as well. For both age groups of driver candidates, driver 
characteristics other than age have to be considered to identify a 
subset of candidates within those age groups who can demonstrate an 
ability to learn how to become safe, professional drivers through 
supervised, performance-based training, and through trucks equipped 
with modern-day safety technologies. For the reasons mentioned above, 
ATA believes that the criteria outlined in the DRIVE Safe Act are 
precisely tailored for this very purpose.

    Question 6. The FAST Act of 2015 required FMCSA to conduct a pilot 
program for drivers younger than 21 years of age with military 
training. FMCSA is also pursuing a second pilot program for non-
military drivers under 21 years of age. Do you agree that the data 
obtained through these pilot programs would be important to consider in 
guiding national policy regarding interstate drivers younger than 21 
years of age?
    Answer. ATA agrees with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) that training provided by the military for 18, 
19, and 20-year-olds serving in the seven Military Occupational 
Specialty (MOS) codes \11\ identified by FMCSA for the purposes of the 
Under 21 Military Pilot Program is effective in vetting, teaching, and 
preparing qualified service members to operate CMVs safely in 
interstate commerce as 18, 19, and 20-year-old civilians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 88M Motor Transport Operator (Army); 92F Fueler (Army); 2T1 
Vehicle Operations (Air Force); 2Fo Fueler (Air Force); 3E2 Pavement 
and Construction Equipment (Air Force); E.O. Equipment Operator (Navy); 
and 3531 Motor Vehicle Operator (Marine Corps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Significantly, in denying the Truckload Carrier Association's (TCA) 
petition for an under 21 driver pilot program in 2003, FMCSA itself 
left open the possibility that certain 18, 19, and 20-year-old drivers 
may be able to learn to how to operate CMVs safely in interstate 
commerce--and the Agency did not limit this potentially qualified 
subset of 18, 19 and 20-year-old drivers to those who received training 
in the military.\12\ Specifically, the Agency correctly determined in 
2003 that ``we do not believe. . .this universe of drivers are all 
unfit to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.'' \13\ As the Agency 
also noted in 2003, other key stakeholders agreed with this 
assessment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ 68 Fed. Reg. 34467 (June 9, 2003).
    \13\ Id. at 34470.
    \14\ Specifically, according to the Agency, the joint statement of 
the American Automobile Association, the American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
(CVSA), and the National Association of Governor's Highway Safety 
Representatives stated that the challenges associated with ``younger 
[CMV] drivers can be overcome by effective training, real-world driving 
experience, and mentoring.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consistent with these views, ATA believes that the enhanced 
training standards of the DRIVE Safe Act can be at least as equally 
effective as the training provided in the seven MOS codes referenced 
above, in vetting, teaching, and preparing qualified 18, 19, and 20-
year-old non-military drivers to operate CMVs safely in interstate 
commerce. Given the many similarities between the training regimen of 
those seven MOS codes and the training regimen of the DRIVE Safe 
Act,\15\ Congress should have a similar level of ex ante confidence in 
the safety prospects of the latter as the level of ex ante confidence 
Congress expressed in mandating the former.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ e.g., Training Hours (160 hours minimum for the 7 MOS versus 
400 hours minimum for DRIVE Safe); both training regiments require 
Performance Based Training, and Supervised Training, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to 
                              Chris Spear
    Women in Trucking: Recent reports show low levels of women 
participating in the trucking industry.

    Question 1. What is your organization doing to incentivize women to 
join the trucking industry? What institutional barriers, if any, exist?
    Answer. The American Trucking Associations has long been a leading 
advocate and champion for the promotion and advancement of female 
representation in the trucking workforce. Whether as drivers, 
technicians, safety directors, executives, or company owners, ATA and 
our member companies are committed to promoting this important cause.
    Regrettably, the fact remains that although women currently make up 
47 percent of the U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7 percent of 
truck drivers, and only a quarter of all transportation and warehousing 
jobs in trucking. While the trucking industry has taken great strides 
over the last decade in increasing the female workforce, growing the 
number of women truck drivers by 68 percent since 2010, women remain 
underrepresented in the industry.
    ATA has worked to promote the female trucking workforce through our 
image programs; America's Road Team and Trucking Moves America Forward. 
Using these programs we amplify the many women professional drivers 
through social media, television interviews and career fairs. We also 
work closely with our member companies to promote their women drivers, 
and many of those member companies have accepted the challenge to 
recruit more women into the industry. For example, ATA member Prime, 
Inc. has the Highway Diamonds program, whose mission is to employ and 
support female drivers at Prime while recognizing and reducing 
challenges women may face in the transportation industry.
    ATA has also worked with Congress to address this issue, 
championing the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act, introduced 
by Senators Moran (R-KS) and Baldwin (D-WI) in the Senate, and Rep. 
Gallagher (R-WI) in the House. This important legislation will bring 
greater attention to the recruitment, training, mentorship, and 
outreach to women in the trucking industry. This in turn will lead to 
increased female representation in trucking and greater industry 
diversity, while providing another tool to help the trucking industry 
confront and stem its growing driver shortage.

    Question 2. What can Congress do to help increase the number of 
women in the trucking industry?
    Answer. We believe that an important action that House and Senate 
should take is enacting the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act 
this Congress. Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking 
Advisory Board under the leadership of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act marks a 
significant step in legislative effort to encourage greater female 
participation in the trucking workforce.

    Automatic Emergency Braking. Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) 
systems provide a warning to the driver when a truck comes too close to 
another vehicle from behind and automatically applies the brakes if the 
driver fails to do so. The National Highway and Transportation Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) estimated in 2012 that advanced AEB systems 
could save 166 lives per year and prevent 8,361 injuries per year. A 
2018 NHTSA study found that AEB systems have an incremental cost to the 
end-user of $71 to $316. The American Trucking Association (ATA) 
recently updated its policies that recognize the benefits of automatic 
emergency braking.

    Question 3. Does ATA support the efforts to ensure AEB technology 
is installed on all new commercial vehicles?
    Answer. ATA supports efforts to ensure that AEB technology is 
installed on new commercial vehicles, and is currently working with the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) to ensure every motor vehicle over 
10,000 lbs. and fleet or owner operator has this capability. ATA is 
also working with DOT to ensure that these groups also have access to 
any other advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) technology that has 
the potential to save lives.
    As you may know, safety is the top priority for the U.S. trucking 
industry. In many segments of the U.S. transportation industry, 
companies are voluntarily testing and integrating critical safety 
features into current fleets, and, in many cases, are achieving 
compliance beyond that required by Federal regulations. As a result of 
an historic agreement between DOT and the majority of the U.S. 
automobile manufacturing market, AEB will be standard on virtually all 
light-duty vehicles by 2022.
    Motor carriers are continuing to test collision avoidance systems 
(CAS), like AEB, in a variety of operating environments and real-world 
situations, and a wide variety of research studies have already shown 
significant safety benefits. ATA supports AEB for all new vehicles 
(Class 1-8) and commends commercial motor vehicle fleets that have 
chosen to equip CAS on trucks. The FAST Act (Section 5222) required a 
Beyond Compliance Program that would reward motor carriers in these 
areas, but that mandate has not yet been enacted. ATA encourages 
Congress to support measures that would instruct the Federal government 
to partner with industry to achieve voluntary compliance and improve 
road safety. Recently, ATA was awarded a significant DOT contract to 
begin an incentivized carrier-based program that will expedite CAS 
technology adoption in trucks. ATA believes this will be a meaningful 
and positive step to improve the safety of U.S. motor carriers and road 
transportation, in general.

    Congestion: As your written testimony highlights, highway 
congestion adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight 
transportation each year. America's Transportation Infrastructure Act 
(S.2302) provides $200 million in competitive grants for States and 
local governments to advance innovative, integrated, and multimodal 
solutions to address congestion relief in our most congested 
metropolitan areas to address roadway congestion (Section 1404).

    Question 4. While this is a small step towards reducing overall 
highway congestion, do you support these efforts to combat congestion?
    Answer. Certain aspects of the Section 1404 program are likely to 
effectively reduce congestion. For example, traffic incident 
management, work zone management, and better traffic signal timing are 
well-established, proven techniques for improving mobility. Some of the 
other eligible activities are either untested or have been found to be 
ineffective. Efforts to shift single occupant vehicle drivers to 
alternative modes, for example, have largely failed to produce 
measurable reductions in congestion.
    Pricing of highways is largely untested in the United States 
outside of HOT lanes or expressway applications where drivers have a 
choice to utilize toll-free lanes. Specifically, with regard to trucks, 
pricing is unlikely to shift freight to alternative modes or to off-
peak hours because these costs are not generally passed on to shippers 
and receivers, who determine both mode choice and pick-up and delivery 
times. ATA is adamantly opposed to the expansion of Interstate tolling 
authority under Sec. 1404(d)(6). Tolling existing Interstates will 
shift vehicles to less safe, less well-constructed surface streets not 
intended for heavy traffic. Tolling is also an extremely inefficient 
revenue source, with an average of 16 percent of total revenue going 
toward collection costs; by contrast, collection costs for the fuel tax 
are only around one percent.

    Question 5. What additional recommendations would you make to 
further reduce congestion on our roadways?
    Answer. According to research conducted by the American 
Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), 89 percent of trucking 
congestion occurs on just 12 percent of the Interstate Highway System. 
ATRI also identifies the top 100 highway freight bottlenecks on an 
annual basis. Congress should focus funding on addressing those parts 
of the Interstate system that cause the majority of congestion. To that 
end, ATA's Build America Fund proposal would dedicate $5 billion 
annually toward addressing these major freight bottlenecks.

    Question 6. What role does preserving the 5.9 Ghz safety band play 
in efforts to reduce roadway congestion and air pollution?
    Answer. Vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) communications in the 5.9 
GHz band provide benefits in safety, mobility, and reduced emissions. 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates 
that just four Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) -based 
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) applications could avoid or mitigate nearly 89 
percent of light duty vehicle crashes, which would have benefits for 
all road users. While NHTSA is currently conducting research on V2V for 
use in heavy vehicles, the agency estimates that 70 percent of crashes 
involving trucks occur in scenarios that could be addressed by V2V 
systems. Preventing these crashes will not only improve safety, but 
also enhance mobility by reducing the congestion associated with 
crashes and emergency response. These efficiencies would, in turn, 
reduce the emissions and fuel consumption that would have otherwise 
resulted because of vehicles stopped in traffic caused by the crash.
    Driver-assistive truck platooning enabled by dedicated short range 
communication (DSRC) technology--currently available on the 5.9 GHz 
safety band--improves fuel efficiency, provides safety benefits, and 
stimulates greater business efficiency in trucking. Truck platooning 
systems, a V2V communication, wirelessly connect the braking and 
acceleration systems between trucks to enable the trucks to travel 
closer together, which improves aerodynamics and, increases fuel 
economy for all vehicles involved. Truck platooning is operational in 
some fleets and has been demonstrated by FHWA and the U.S. military.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                              Chris Spear
    Human Trafficking. Truckers are often the first line of defense 
against human trafficking. Last Congress, I introduced the Combating 
Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act with Senator Thune to 
require the Department of Transportation to designate a human 
trafficking prevention coordinator and to increase outreach and 
education efforts at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 
Our legislation was signed into law in January 2018.

    Question. Can you speak to ATA's efforts to educate drivers on how 
to detect and help prevent human trafficking?
    Answer. ATA and our member companies take our role as frontline 
fighters against human trafficking very seriously. Truck drivers are 
the eyes and ears of the Nation's highways, and as such, we work very 
closely with our member companies to provide truck drivers with the 
appropriate training and education necessary to deal with this type of 
heinous crime.
    ATA serves on the Board of Truckers Against Trafficking, supporting 
their efforts on education, information-sharing, and amplifying 
resources to fight human trafficking. Many of ATA's members are also 
actively involved in the Department of Homeland Security's Blue 
Campaign. Furthermore, numerous ATA members, as well as our federation 
of 50 state trucking associations, have made tremendous efforts to 
increase driver education and training on how to identify and prevent 
human trafficking.
    In recent years, the industry has made nearly 2,500 calls to the 
national hotline to report possible instances of trafficking. Those 
calls generated nearly 700 active cases, which, in turn, helped to 
identify and rescue more than 1,240 victims.
    Finally, ATA's America's Road Team Captains--a group of 
professional truck drivers with impeccable driving records and a 
dedication to road safety--travel the country educating the general 
public on important trucking safety issues, including the realities of 
human trafficking and how to report it effectively.
    We are also aware of the key role Congress has played in drawing 
greater attention to combatting human trafficking, and appreciate that 
you have been a long-time leader in this fight. For that reason, we 
were so pleased to present you with the 2020 Hero Award from our 
Trucking Cares Foundation earlier this year, in recognition of 
leadership to combat human trafficking. As the sponsor of S.1536, the 
Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Motor Vehicles Act, and a 
champion of several other human trafficking legislative efforts, we 
thank and appreciate your ongoing work, and look forward to continuing 
to work closely with you and your colleagues, as well as law 
enforcement, to stem the tide of human trafficking.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                              Chris Spear
    The lack of information about national road restrictions on 
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers 
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units 
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or 
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger 
traffic but do not currently make information about national road 
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials 
available to users.
    As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these 
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can 
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage 
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities. As more 
commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can expect 
accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution is 
found.
    In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial 
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road. 
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways 
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King 
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last 
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped 
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar 
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
    I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely 
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their 
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to 
appreciate the gravity of this issue.

    Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this 
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively 
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
    Answer. Truck drivers are tested and trained regularly to operate 
the vehicle they are assigned and the route they are provided to safely 
deliver freight. Not all states test truck drivers the same nor do they 
have consistent signage for capable routes. Some truck drivers do 
travel interstate and are sometimes forced to drive on unknown roads 
due to rerouting from accidents and construction.
    There are currently many truck driver routing apps and services 
available to the industry. Apps and services connect directly with 
electronic logging devices for those operations that require them, are 
purchasable through smartphone applications, and can be fitted by the 
truck OEM or another third-party solutions provider. ATA encourages 
smart route planning through available technology and routine driver-
dispatcher training practices.

    Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and 
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to 
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech 
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and 
preventative warnings?
    Answer. Similar to government funded projects for high railroad 
crossings where long wheel base trucks and automobiles would get hung 
up and in danger of an oncoming train, tracking and testing states 
lowered bridges and other infrastructure types that certain trucks are 
forbidden to drive near and providing open source data would allow all 
tech companies that can provide solutions to have a fair market. And 
yes, increasing state funding to enhance signage and warnings would 
help too. Also, consider that many onboard vehicle technologies are 
integrating artificial intelligence to recognize these signs and 
warnings so working closer with the industry on this topic is highly 
recommended.

    The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was 
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In 
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum 
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many 
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side 
brace system was 252 pounds.

    Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing 
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also 
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and 
manufacturers across America?
    Answer. ATA is not equipped to comment on the workforce 
implications of increased side underride guard manufacturing on 
aluminum producers at this time. However, I would note that the Texas 
A&M study referenced in your question preamble, and the findings they 
produced, were based on computer-modulated testing, not real-world 
testing or even prototyped tested. The research does not consider the 
unintended consequences the trucking industry has regularly discussed 
with government agencies, and it does not consider the relatively small 
percentage of accidents that occur on highways compared to rear-end and 
front-end accidents.
    While this technology may successfully stop a passenger car from 
going underneath a trailer, there remains outstanding concern for how 
this technology could work in real-world operations. Specifically, 
there is significant confusion and concern about what may happen in a 
crash during a realistic highway scenario--at highway speeds, with a 
moving truck and trailer, and with other traffic present. For instance, 
while a side underride guard may successfully stop a passenger car from 
going underneath a trailer, the potential for that car to bounce off 
the trailer and strike other vehicles is a concern that should be 
researched.
    I raise this with you because it brings us back to the reality, 
recognized by the industry, and confirmed by government agencies, that 
more research is required on this technology before Congress can 
responsibly consider mandating the installation of these guards for 
real world operations. As you know, in April 2019, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) published a report, as requested by Members 
of Congress, reviewing the topic of underride crashes. As a result of a 
yearlong investigation, including numerous interviews with State and 
Federal Government, Local Police Departments, Foreign Governments, and 
over 29 industry groups, including those supportive of this mandate, 
GAO concluded that more research should be conducted by DOT on this 
issue. ATA agrees with GAO's findings and their recommendation that DOT 
conduct additional research on side underride guards.

    The shortage of safe overnight parking spots for truck drivers to 
rest. We all know how important it is for truck drivers to get a good 
night's sleep after a long day on the road. Driver fatigue remains a 
leading factor in large truck crashes, which killed nearly 5,000 
Americans last year alone. Well-rested drivers are more alert and 
focused and are better able to react to changes on the road ahead of 
them.
    In order to get a good night's sleep, truck drivers need to be able 
to conveniently locate a safe, legal place to park overnight. But this 
has become an increasingly difficult task, particularly in states like 
Connecticut that are located along highly trafficked interstate 
corridors.
    The American Transportation Research Institute's 2019 annual report 
identified the lack of truck parking as a significant issue facing the 
trucking industry. The report showed commercial truck drivers ranked 
the lack of truck parking as one of their greatest concern, because of 
the daily challenges it creates and the risks it poses on their 
personal safety.
    With few spaces available, drivers are often forced to park in 
overcrowded lots or park illegally along shoulders, off ramps, or in 
empty parking lots--spaces that are at best unconducive to a good 
night's sleep and at worst pose a threat to the driver's safety. I've 
also heard from many owner-operators that while conditions have been 
worsening for years, the parking shortage has now reached a crisis 
stage.

    Question 4. This is clearly a nationwide issue--in a 2015 survey 
conducted by the Federal Highway Administration, thirty-seven state 
DOT's reported that they have a problem with truck parking in their 
state. How has the lack of available safe, legal truck parking places 
impacted your members?
    Answer. Parking scarcity impacts operational efficiency and 
directly relates to safety. The American Transportation Research 
Institute's (ATRI) annual industry survey, Critical Issues in the 
Trucking Industry, shows truck parking steadily increasing in rank 
since 2012. According to the survey, truck parking began as the 8th 
most important issue in 2012 and has remained in the top ten ever 
since.
    With regard to operational efficiency, ATRI driver respondents 
reported ``giving up'' an average of 56 minutes of available drive time 
per day parking rather than risking not being able to find a safe, 
legal sport to park later down the road. This unused drive time reduces 
a driver's productivity by 9,300 revenue-earning miles annually, which 
translates to about $4,600 in lost wages annually. These productivity 
losses may reduce driver wages by up to 10 percent.
    With regard to safety, if available parking cannot be found within 
a driver's available hours of service (HOS), they may be forced to park 
in an illegal or unsafe location, or they may continue to drive while 
fatigued. Unauthorized parking creates a safety hazard for truck 
drivers and other motorists by exposing trucks to traffic conditions in 
locations where trucks are not designed to be parked. Moreover, parking 
on roadway shoulders or entrance/exit ramps is illegal in most 
locations.
    Beyond the operational efficiency and safety issues, the parking 
shortage makes a tough job even more difficult. There is a serious 
shortage of qualified truck drivers, particularly over-the-road drivers 
who often sleep in their trucks. The lack of available parking is a key 
issue when it comes to recruiting and retaining over-the-road truck 
drivers.

    Question 5. As Congress considers the best way to invest in 
infrastructure improvements, what do you feel we can do legislatively 
to help address this serious highway safety issue?
    Answer. Insufficient truck parking is an issue that unites the 
entire trucking industry. Several prominent trucking organizations, 
including the American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator 
Independent Drivers Association, all support H.R. 6104, the Truck 
Parking Safety Improvement Act, and would strongly encourage the bill's 
inclusion in a transportation reauthorization bill. H.R. 6104, was 
recently introduced by Representatives Bost (R-IL) and Craig (D-MN), 
and would dedicate existing highway funding to projects that expand 
truck parking capacity. This legislation would establish a competitive 
discretionary grant program and allot hundreds of millions of dollars 
in existing highway safety program funding for truck parking projects 
across the Nation.
    While truck parking is eligible for funding under the Federal-aid 
highway program, parking projects are rarely given priority due to the 
lack of overall funding for other core highway programs. Absent Federal 
investment in truck parking capacity expansion, shortages will become 
even more severe, decreasing safety for all highway motorists.

    The benefits of strengthening rear underride guards. An aluminum 
plate which could be retrofit on tractor trailers to strengthen rear 
underride guards was recently crash tested at 38 mph. It prevented 
underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion. If this had been a real 
life crash, the car occupants would have survived.

    Question 6. How might the trucking industry benefit from the 
installation of this device on large trucks?
    Answer. The safety of our Nation's roads and bridges, and the 
motoring public, is unquestionably of paramount importance. Safety 
anchors the very foundation of the trucking industry, shaping its core 
values and decision-making. Each year, the trucking industry invests 
approximately $10 billion annually in safety initiatives, including 
truck onboard technologies such as electronic logging devices, 
collision avoidance systems, and video-event recorders. Investments 
also include driver safety training, driver safety incentive pay, and 
compliance with safety regulations (e.g., pre-employment and random 
drug tests, and motor vehicle record checks). While some of these 
investments are made to meet a myriad of regulatory requirements, many 
of them are voluntary and progressive safety initiatives that pay high 
dividends in highway safety.
    ATA believes that every opportunity to add a device to a commercial 
vehicle to save lives should be taken, so long as the device has been 
thoroughly researched, tested, and approved for deployment either 
through retrofit or on new vehicles only. Furthermore, we understand 
the heartfelt concerns and passion in advocacy of the family members 
who have experienced unfathomable tragedy. However, proposed 
requirements for trucks to install underride guards, however well-
intentioned, are highly prescriptive mandates that are not based on 
science, data, or safety benefit at this time. These proposals ignore 
the potential technical issues that a blanket mandate raises, as well 
as other technologies that currently exist to address these crashes, 
such as automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring systems, and 
adaptive turning assist. Finally, these proposals ignore the diversity 
of the industry. In trucking, we know that one size does not fit all, 
and that investments in certain technologies that one company makes may 
not make sense for another. Standards for new and in-service truck 
equipment should be based on sound economic and engineering principles 
that demonstrably enhance safety, take into account real-world 
operations, and weigh possible unintended consequences.
    Another reality of this technology is that it places focus solely 
on mitigating a crash after it has happened, as compared to focusing on 
efforts--such as safety technologies that are available today--to 
prevent the crash from happening in the first place. All parties should 
be focused on crash avoidance that can be achieved by enhancing 
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) connectivity. In NHTSA's January 2017 V2V 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for light-duty vehicles, the Agency 
estimates that four safety applications enabled by the proposed rule 
could avoid or mitigate 89 percent of light duty vehicle crashes. NHTSA 
is currently also conducting research on V2V for heavy vehicles, and 
estimates that 70 percent of crashes involving trucks occur in 
scenarios that could be addressed by V2V systems.

    The trucking industry's efforts to gut state laws granting rest 
breaks to truck drivers and weaken Federal hours of service 
regulations. Over 20 states--including Connecticut--provide workers 
with mandatory meal and rest breaks. These laws have existed for nearly 
a century in some states and are critical for all kinds of workers, 
protecting them from workplace fatigue and related accidents, injury 
and death. These laws also apply to commercial truck drivers, with some 
exemptions.
    There is an effort now underway to preempt--or effectively gut--
these meal and rest break laws so as to maximize the workday of truck 
drivers, making them even more fatigued. We have seen this happen in 
California and the process is currently underway in Washington State.

    Question 7. Mr. Spear--your testimony indicates that you believe 
the Federal hours of service are too stringent, and you are asking to 
lessen or even eliminate these Federal regulations--while at the same 
time, you are asking the FMCSA to systematically preempt each state's 
meal and rest break law as applied to commercial motor carriers.
    It seems to me what you are really saying is that you want no 
regulation of any kind. Little to no Federal regulation, and no state 
laws or regulations. How does this help or improve safety on U.S. 
roads?
    Answer. My testimony did not suggest in any way that ATA or the 
trucking industry is seeking to eliminate the Federal regulations 
governing commercial driver hours of service. Quite to the contrary, 
ATA strongly supports uniform, Federal regulation of driver hours 
driven by the evidence of what best promotes safety while allowing for 
the efficient movement of our Nation's freight. In fact, ATA was a 
leading supporter of the Congressional requirement that commercial 
trucks be equipped with electronic devices that record driving time--
precisely because we believe it's crucial for all drivers to adhere to 
those rules. My testimony merely spoke to a small number of ways in 
which we feel the Federal rules can be improved on the margins to 
provide greater flexibility without compromising highway safety or 
driver welfare.
    ATA has, and will continue to support, a robust hours-of-service 
(HOS) framework that makes sense for both drivers and motor carriers. 
This includes support for needed flexibilities that give drivers and 
motor carriers the capability to calibrate HOS in way that makes sense 
for their own operations. As I stated in my testimony, ATA supports 
FMCSA's recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which would give drivers 
and motor carriers more flexibility to adjust HOS when confronted with 
variable road conditions or severe traffic congestion.
    Let me be clear: this support for the NPRM does not mean ATA 
opposes HOS. Quite the contrary, HOS rules exist to ensure drivers 
obtain the rest they need to safely operate a CMV. Yet, much of the 
emerging literature and scientific data now suggest the structure of 
those restful hours can be more flexible, achieving an equivalent, if 
not greater level of safety than can be achieved with the current HOS 
ruleset. ATA has found supportive data, for example, showing drivers 
can safely split their sleeper berth periods into 7 and 3-hour 
segments, rather than the exclusive 8-and 2-hour segments proscribed by 
current Federal regulation. ATA supports these proposed changes 
precisely because the empirical evidence points to a positive 
association between more flexible fatigue management and safety.
    In effect, ATA's position is not to weaken HOS, but to make the 
current rules stronger and better aligned with the needs of a 21st 
Century workforce. As such, in the two decades since HOS rules were 
first substantially changed, shifts in ecommerce, technology, and trade 
have transformed how far and how fast trucks move. Given research and 
data that shows sleep schedules can be safely adjusted--why not revise 
the Federal requirements to make them better-suited to freight movement 
and consumer demand? In short, ATA does not ask FMCSA to eliminate 
rules because they are too stringent, but to eliminate ones that are no 
longer based on strong scientific data or evidence.
    With respect to your question relating to the preemption of State 
meal and rest break laws for motor carriers operating interstate 
commerce, I would like to make clear that ATA is not ``asking the FMCSA 
to systematically preempt each state's meal and rest break law as 
applied to commercial motor carriers.'' We have asked FMCSA to preempt 
one state's break law--that of California. Our affiliated Washington 
Trucking Association has also asked FMCSA to preempt Washington's very 
similar break law, which we support.
    We sought preemption of California's break rules (and support 
preemption of Washington's similar rules) because they are extremely 
onerous--depriving drivers and carriers alike of a considerable portion 
of the daily productivity the FMCSA has determined, in its expert view 
and at Congress's command, to be consistent with the demands of highway 
safety and driver welfare--with no offsetting safety or welfare 
benefits. Unlike the rules promulgated by FMCSA, California's break 
rules were not developed with highway safety or commercial driver 
welfare in mind, much less through careful study of the developing 
science surrounding fatigue management and its relationship to crash 
risk. Instead, they are arbitrary in nature--enacted not by 
California's Department of Transportation but by its Industrial Wage 
Commission, and not specific to the trucking industry, much less 
commercial drivers. And as FMCSA concluded when it reviewed those 
rules, their very arbitrariness undermines highway safety and driver 
welfare, because by making it more likely that drivers will be forced 
to take breaks when they don't need them, they will be less likely to 
take them when they do need them; and against a background of a serious 
shortage of truck parking, drivers will find it harder to find safe and 
legal parking when they do need to rest, forcing them to choose between 
driving longer while fatigued, or creating a serious safety hazard by 
parking in places such as highway ramps.
    In short, ATA supports a single, nationally uniform set of rules 
developed by the expert agency that Congress charged with doing so--not 
a cumbersome patchwork of rules cobbled together by 50 states without 
so much as a thought about their effects on highway safety or the 
movement of freight in interstate commerce.

    The need for adequate insurance limits for trucking companies. In 
1980, Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Act to set insurance minimums 
for commercial truck drivers. In 1980, the insurance minimum was set at 
$750,000 per accident. The intent of Congress was to increase the 
minimums regularly to keep pace with inflation, according to report 
language in the bill.
    However, Congress has not updated this amount for almost 40 years. 
In fact, the $750,000 amount, if adjusted for inflation in today's 
dollars, would be over $2.4 million, a difference of about $1.65 
million. That is a staggering difference.
    As you may also know, commercial motor vehicle crashes cost our 
country upwards of $130 billion in 2016, which American taxpayers 
ultimately pay for when the costs of truck crashes exceed the minimum 
insurance amount.

    Question 8. Mr. Spear--you have stated in your testimony that your 
organization opposes increasing trucking insurance minimums, even to 
keep pace with inflation. So, what would have me tell a family that 
lost a loved one in a trucking crash, and is now unable to fully 
recover because they are forced to split $750,000 with all families 
involved in the crash?
    Answer. ATA emphatically believes that when a motor carrier acts 
wrongly, and its wrongful actions harm those with whom we share the 
roads, it should be held accountable and the victims made whole. That 
said, for any realistic level of minimum insurance requirements, there 
will always, unfortunately, be some outlier cases that fall outside 
them. The challenge from a public policy perspective is to set 
insurance requirements so that they will fully cover an overwhelmingly 
large share of crashes, while taking into account the costs of 
insurance and their impacts on the supply chain. ATA supports an 
evidence-based approach to insurance requirements that will strike that 
proper balance.
    And the simple fact is that the best available evidence indicates 
that an overwhelmingly large share of truck crashes--all but 
approximately one tenth of one percent--are within the current 
insurance minimums. See K. Hymel et al., Financial Responsibility 
Requirements for Commercial Motor Vehicles 36 (Volpe Transportation 
Center, 2013). That remaining one tenth of a percent represents a long 
tail of outliers, which means steeply diminishing returns from 
increased insurance levels in terms of capturing additional crashes.
    It is worth bearing in mind, in this context, that there is no 
federally mandated minimum insurance level for passenger cars, and no 
state car insurance minimum is anywhere near as high as the Federal 
commercial minimum. Thus, the hypothetical family in the question posed 
would be far less likely to be able to fully recover if they were 
involved in a passenger car crash--which is of course far more common 
than a trucking crash. Such situations are undeniably tragic, but we 
don't require passenger cars to carry millions in insurance coverage--
even though it is hardly inconceivable that they might occasionally 
inflict millions in damages--because Congress and state legislatures 
have implicitly made the policy judgment that doing so would increase 
the costs of driving--to the point of making driving unaffordable for 
many--out of proportion to any benefits.
    To be sure, commercial vehicles--because they are commercial--can 
fairly be expected to be held to a higher financial responsibility 
standard than a private motorist, as indeed they are. But ATA does not 
favor arbitrary increases that are unsupported by the data. And as 
FMCSA itself has recognized, the available data do not demonstrate that 
insurance increases would be net beneficial. See Financial 
Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders, and Brokers, 82 
Fed. Reg. 25753, 25754 (June 5, 2017).

    Question 9. Knowing that there has not been an increase in almost 
four decades and knowing the amount in today's dollars is three times 
the amount of the cap, can you honestly tell me in good faith that 
$750,000 is enough to sufficiently cover a multi vehicle crash with 
multiple fatalities?
    Answer. The fact that the current minimum insurance level was set 
in 1980 does not, in and of itself, mean that it is inadequate today. 
The implication that it does rests on an unstated--and unsupported--
premise that the level was precisely right when it was set in 1980, and 
ignores the tremendous strides in highway safety that have been 
achieved in the intervening years, making crashes less frequent, and 
less likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries when they do 
occur. As explained above, those minimums are sufficient to cover all 
but a fraction of a percent of truck crashes today. Arbitrarily 
increasing those minimums to adjust them for inflation might mean that 
some small (though unknown) addition number of outlier crashes were 
certain to be covered--but to make that adjustment without knowing the 
benefits it would produce, or the effect it would have on the supply 
chain and American consumers, would be irresponsible. And it would 
still leave many of those fraction-of-a-percent outliers uncovered, 
particularly at a time when the trucking industry is seeing a trend of 
eight-and nine-figure verdicts.
    Indeed, if the goal were truly to be 100 percent certain that every 
truck-involved crash will be within required insurance minimums, that 
minimum would have to be set north of $280 million. See M. Singleton, 
Historic $280,065,000 verdict delivered in wrongful death suit Madere 
v. Schnitzer (Aug. 23, 2019), https://www.wrbl.com/news/local-news/280-
million-verdict-delivered-in-wrongful-death-suit-madere-v-schnitzer/. 
Nobody is suggesting a mandatory minimum like that, because the costs 
would self-evidently be astronomical in relation to the benefit. And 
that, in turn belies the notion that the idea of arbitrarily raising 
insurance minimums to track inflation is really about making certain 
that every crash will be fully covered. The actual effect of such an 
arbitrary increase--aside from an additional tiny fraction of a percent 
of potential additional crashes covered--will be to increase the 
current feeding frenzy the trial bar is enjoying at the expense of 
motor carries and the supply chain, as plaintiffs' lawyers further 
inflate their already-inflated claims to take advantage of a larger pot 
of insurance money.

    Question 10. When the damages exceed this outdated cap, do you 
think it is fair for someone else, like the American taxpayer, to pick 
up the tab when it is your member's driver who was solely responsible?
    Answer. We believe fairness for the American taxpayer, consumer and 
motoring public is achieved when our civil justice system results in 
just compensation, proportionate to actual responsibility, rooted in 
the facts of a particular case.
    Unfortunately, in an increasing number of jurisdictions across the 
U.S., these basic principles are being upended by a system of ``jackpot 
justice.'' As with the hypothetical posed in the above question, we see 
cases being litigated not on the facts of what actually happened in a 
particular highway accident, but rather on sensationalized theories 
that seek to inflame juries by putting an entire industry on trial. 
This pursuit of disproportionate and arbitrary nuclear verdicts by the 
plaintiffs' bar erodes fairness, perverts justice, and harms the 
American taxpayer, consumer and motoring public. The costs are both 
human and economic and have created an exploding crisis in commercial 
insurance markets across the country, with skyrocketing rates that are 
forcing motor carriers and insurance providers out of business, 
disrupting the supply chain, and increasing the cost of living.
    The implied presumption in your question that arbitrarily raising 
current minimum insurance levels to cover an extreme minority of 
outlier cases--devoid of any evidence of the benefits and costs--will 
somehow bring fairness to the American taxpayer is unfounded. To the 
contrary, we believe it will exacerbate the growing costs being 
inflicted on society by the gross lawsuit abuse perpetrated by a trial 
industry motivated by profit.

    The need to implement side underride guards. In your testimony you 
state that equipping 12 million trailers with side guard would be cost 
prohibitive. The figure you state is in regards to the retrofitting of 
existing trailers on the road. However, if the requirement was modified 
to just require side guards on new trailers--as all the truck safety 
organizations have signed off on--the cost would be near negligible 
since the side guard would be integrated into all of the changes 
included in a brand new trailer.

    Question 11. Considering two truck manufactures have already filed 
patents for side guards on trailers and other companies are currently 
in the design phase of side guards for their trailers, would you be 
willing to compromise in requiring new trucks to have side guards?
    Answer. This issue still comes down to real world operations and 
actual safety benefit. Side underride guards remain unproven and 
untested in realistic highway scenarios at this time, and the 
unintended consequences of installing this technology has yet to be 
addressed. Indeed, as the GAO found, more research into this technology 
is required before mandating new or existing trucks have side underride 
guards.
    As suggested earlier, this technology, which remains unproven, 
anticipates a crash. We would be better served by investing resources 
in technologies that will help reduce crash risk altogether. All 
parties should be focused on crash avoidance that can be achieved by 
enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) connectivity. In NHTSA's January 
2017 V2V Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for light-duty vehicles, the 
Agency estimates that four safety applications enabled by the proposed 
rule could avoid or mitigate 89 percent of light duty vehicle crashes. 
NHTSA is currently also conducting research on V2V for heavy vehicles 
and estimates that 70 percent of crashes involving trucks occur in 
scenarios that could be addressed by V2V systems.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                              Chris Spear
    Women in Trucking. Currently, women make up only one quarter of the 
trucking workforce and seven percent of all truck drivers, despite 
accounting for almost half of the United States' workforce. Senator 
Moran and I have introduced the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce 
Act to direct FMCSA to establish an advisory board to identify barriers 
to entry for women in the trucking industry and submit a report to 
Congress on the board's findings and recommendations.

    Question 1. Please describe the importance of recruiting and 
retaining women in the trucking industry.
    Answer. First and foremost, thank you for joining Senator Moran in 
introducing the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act. ATA was glad 
to work closely with your staffs in crafting this important 
legislation, and endorsing it upon introduction. Our hope and 
expectation is that the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act will 
be passed and signed into law this Congress.
    As you know, recruiting and retaining women in the trucking 
workforce is tremendously important. Regrettably, while women currently 
make up 47 percent of the U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7 
percent of truck drivers, and only a quarter of all transportation and 
warehousing jobs in trucking. While the trucking industry has taken 
great strides over the last decade in increasing the female workforce, 
growing the number of women truck drivers by 68 percent since 2010, 
women remain underrepresented in the industry.
    Therefore, it is imperative that we devote greater attention to the 
recruitment, training, mentorship, and outreach to women in the 
trucking industry. This in turn will lead to increased female 
representation in trucking and greater industry diversity, while 
providing another tool to help the trucking industry confront and stem 
its growing driver shortage.

    Question 2. What more can be done to remove barriers that women 
face when pursuing careers in trucking?
    Answer. An important step that can be taken legislatively would be 
the enactment of your bill, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce 
Act. Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking Advisory Board 
under the leadership of the FMCSA, your legislation will draw greater 
focus on removing those barriers and encouraging greater female 
participation in the trucking workforce.
    Outside of the legislative arena, ATA will continue to promote the 
female trucking workforce through our image programs: America's Road 
Team and Trucking Moves America Forward. Using these programs we 
amplify the many women professional drivers through social media, 
television interviews and career fairs. We also work closely with our 
member companies to promote their women drivers, and many of those 
member companies have accepted the challenge to recruit more women into 
the industry. For example, ATA member Prime, Inc. has the Highway 
Diamonds program, whose mission is to employ and support female drivers 
at Prime while recognizing and reducing challenges women may face in 
the transportation industry.

    Question 3. What more can be done to improve retention of women's 
careers in trucking?
    Answer. We believe the greater challenge is in encouraging women to 
enter the trucking workforce, rather than improving retention. Once a 
part of the industry, female trucking professionals will have the 
opportunity to secure significant and competitive wage, benefits, paid 
leave, retirement and insurance packages with a company. Furthermore, 
they will have the chance to embrace a rewarding and fulfilling career 
in an industry that literally moves the economy and delivers needed 
goods to every city, town and neighborhood throughout this great 
country.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                              Chris Spear
    Promoting Careers in the Trucking Industry. I recently introduced 
the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, along with Senators 
Sullivan, Rosen, Gardner, and Cortez Masto. This legislation would 
promote careers in transportation including trucking, and--to a point 
made by Mr. Pugh in his testimony--would encourage a broader pool of 
Americans to consider transportation careers. The bill has broad 
support from industry and labor groups--including some of the 
organizations represented by the witnesses today.

    Question. Can you share your thoughts on the value in promoting 
careers in transportation such as trucking?
    Answer. Your introduction of S.3303, the Promoting Service in 
Transportation Act, is a prudent and timely action that will raise 
national awareness of career opportunities in the transportation 
sector--including truck driver jobs that pay an average salary of 
$45,570, in addition to thousands of dollars in signing bonuses and 
excellent benefits, such as paid leave, health insurance, and 401(k).
    Despite these incentives, the truck driver shortage reached a new 
record high of 60,800, at the end of 2018. To meet the Nation's freight 
demand, the industry will need to hire 1.1 million new truck drivers 
over the next decade--an average of 110,000 per year--to replace 
retiring drivers and keep up with growth in the economy. Given that 
stark reality, coupled with the fact that our industry is responsible 
for delivering goods to almost 80 percent of American communities 
exclusively, significant steps must be taken to stem the Nation's 
growing shortage of qualified drivers.
    The Promoting Service in Transportation Act is an important step 
toward increasing recruitment into the trucking industry, and will 
empower individuals to seek rewarding and long-lasting careers as truck 
drivers, maintenance technicians, and related occupations. ATA was 
thrilled to support your efforts to move the bill through the Commerce 
Committee mark-up process earlier this month, and looks forward to 
working closely with you to get this much-needed legislation signed 
into law.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                               Lewie Pugh
    Question 1. The FAST Act required FMCSA to remove the Safety 
Measurement System scores from public view due to flaws in the system. 
FMCSA is currently in reviewing other options for gathering and 
interpreting enforcement data as part of its SMS program. What impact 
would SMS scores have on your members if that information is available 
publically before FMCSA is able to complete its review and update the 
system?
    Answer. Congress must continue holding FMCSA accountable in 
improving SMS methodology. One of the major shortcomings of SMS is that 
it focuses on enforcement of regulations, instead of factors actually 
related to safe driving. The Government Accountability Office found 
that SMS scores were significantly flawed, and these scores do not 
accurately reflect a carrier's safety or crash risk. The National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) review, mandated by the FAST Act, exposed and 
questioned the lack of quality data, the utilization of invalid subject 
matter experts, the weighted score methodology, and the lack of 
transparency that is associated with CSA and SMS. In their 
recommendations, NAS found, ``the current exposure data are missing 
with high frequency, and data that are collected are likely of 
unsatisfactory quality.'' This can be particularly harmful for small 
carriers with one or two trucks. Because carriers with fewer trucks are 
subject to fewer inspections, the SMS scores for our members are more 
likely to be inaccurate and have a more deleterious effect on their 
overall ratings than larger carriers with thousands of inspections.
    If SMS data is published before FMCSA has an opportunity to fix 
these demonstrated shortcomings, our members would be publicly 
identified with inaccurate safety scores and classified as less safe 
than they actually are. This would result in small motor carriers being 
targeted for safety interventions where none may be necessary. It would 
also likely result in increased insurance rates and a loss of business 
among our members, as insurers and potential customers would mistakenly 
view them as a risk. Additionally, publicly posting flawed SMS data 
could subject small carriers to frivolous lawsuits and unsustainable 
litigation fees. We are also concerned this unreliable information 
could be used as the basis for developing new regulations or 
legislation that would fail to address real safety problems within our 
industry.

    Background: Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving 
facilities beyond an agreed on amount of time, known as detention time. 
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in 
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on 
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay 
for the driver.

    Question 2. What efforts are currently being taken by trucking 
stakeholders to work with shippers to lower detention time?
    Answer. We encourage our members to negotiate detention time pay 
into their contracts so shippers and receivers have a financial 
incentive to promote efficiency during loading and unloading. 
Unfortunately, because many of our members are small businesses, they 
lack the negotiating leverage of larger competitors, making it 
difficult to guarantee compensation during detention. This has limited 
their ability to affect change across the industry. For too long, 
Congress has avoided addressing the issue by counting on market 
conditions to solve the problem. Unfortunately, that has resulted in 
worsening conditions for truckers. Congress must now work with all 
stakeholders to develop policies that will not only improve efficiency 
within the supply chain, but ensure drivers are paid for all the time 
they spend completing a haul.

    Question 3. Are there steps that Congress could take to address 
this issue without heavy-handed mandates?
    Answer. One step Congress can take to improve detention time is 
repealing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime exemption for 
motor carriers. Federal law appropriately requires drivers to be on-
duty while they're being detained, yet Federal law also precludes 
drivers from being compensated for working extra hours. If shippers and 
receivers were responsible for paying drivers for all the hours they 
work during a freight movement, whether directly or through a motor 
carrier, it would provide financial incentive to improve their 
operations and minimize detention.
    The Federal government must also collect more data on detention 
time and work to make the information publicly available. OOIDA 
supports providing public access to expected loading, unloading, and 
delay times at individual facilities. A national database that drivers 
and motor carriers could easily access would give them a better 
understanding of how specific facilities and industries perform, 
providing drivers an opportunity to avoid problematic locations. This 
would further incentivize shippers and receivers to improve efficiency.
    Additional data could also help Congress develop detention time 
standards that reflect the diverse nature of the trucking industry.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                               Lewie Pugh
    Freight Movement. Trucks moved nearly 12 billion tons of cargo in 
2018--over 60 percent of our Nation's freight. That number is expected 
to increase to nearly 13.8 billion tons by 2030.
    But our current infrastructure is in disrepair--the American 
Society of Engineers estimate that the lack of investment in our 
surface transportation system costs households and businesses nearly 
$147 billion a year.
    Truckers are spending valuable time they could be otherwise moving 
goods sitting in miles of traffic due to congestion at our Nation's 
ports and blocked grade crossings.
    These infrastructure reforms must be a high priority if we are 
going to keep our trucks moving and cut down on freight congestion.

    Question 1. Do you agree that we should lift the multimodal cap in 
the INFRA program in order to address congestion at multimodal 
connectors? Why or why not?
    Answer. No. Truckers experience delays as a result of numerous 
factors outside their control, including the rigidity of scheduling by 
shippers and receivers, excessive detention time during loading and 
unloading, traffic congestion, and inclement weather. Unfortunately, 
truckers often experience the greatest burdens associated with rampant 
inefficiencies within the supply chain and unexpected delays in moving 
freight.
    The state of our Nation's infrastructure certainly plays a 
significant role in these delays as well, which is why OOIDA has long 
supported efforts to increase Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues in a 
fair and equitable way. The most immediate and practical way to do this 
in the next highway bill is through reasonable increases to both the 
gasoline and diesel fuel taxes.
    At the same time, our members have concerns about the diversion of 
funding from the HTF to non-highway projects, and see this as their tax 
dollars being used to directly benefit other modes, including those 
with which they compete. OOIDA believes revenues derived from highway 
users should be exclusively devoted to projects that improve movement 
on our Nation's roads.

    Truck Parking. I have heard from many of my constituents in law 
enforcement and the trucking community that truck parking is a huge 
challenge. In my home state of Washington, 46 percent of truck drivers 
say they drive fatigued as a result of insufficient parking. When truck 
stops are full, or when there is inadequate parking available, trucks 
often park on highway ramps or shoulders, creating a safety risk for 
all road users.
    Parking in unsafe areas also puts truck drivers at risk. A Federal 
survey found that 90 percent of drivers have struggled to find safe 
parking at night, and according to a Washington Department of 
Transportation study, 59 percent of truckers reported they are 
frequently concerned with safety--day or night.
    This is also an issue of freight mobility. With trucks lined up for 
miles waiting to get into our ports and across grade crossings, that is 
time that could be otherwise spent moving goods across the country. 
With freight movement expected to rise 40 percent in the next decade--
up to $26 trillion--we have to address this issue if we're going to 
keep our economy moving in the right direction.

    Question 2. How should we be addressing the issue of truck parking 
in a transportation reauthorization bill?
    Answer. Congress should set aside a portion of HTF dollars for the 
exclusive purpose of expanding truck parking capacity as part of 
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Under existing 
Federal highway programs, states may use funding to construct truck 
parking facilities and safety rest areas. Unfortunately, within these 
programs, truck parking projects are left to compete with other state 
priorities. As a result, very little Federal funding has been devoted 
to expanding parking capacity. OOIDA believes the lack of dedicated 
Federal funding has contributed to the current truck parking crisis.
    We're thrilled that bipartisan legislation has been introduced in 
the U.S. House of Representatives--H.R. 6104, the Truck Parking Safety 
Improvement Act--that would set-aside funding from existing highway 
programs for projects that expand truck parking capacity. This solution 
would help states better prioritize truck parking and improve safety 
for all highway users. Through our outreach to elected officials in 
both chambers, we believe there is strong bipartisan support for this 
approach, and anticipate the introduction of a Senate companion to H.R. 
6104 in the near future.
    The bill also has broad support from stakeholders in the trucking 
industry, including the American Trucking Associations, Truckload 
Carriers Association, National Association of Small Trucking Companies, 
and the Transportation Intermediaries Association, as well as the 
National Motorists Association, which represents the motoring public.
    Maintaining the status quo will only perpetuate today's crisis, if 
not worsen conditions for our members and other highway users. We look 
forward to working with members of this Subcommittee to develop and 
advance meaningful solutions like the Truck Parking Safety Improvement 
Act.

    Driver Shortage. The American Trucking Associations states that 
there is a massive driver shortage in the United States. Their solution 
to this problem is the DRIVE Act which will allow younger and less 
experienced drivers on the road.

    Question 3. Do you agree with this solution?
    Answer. No. To agree with a proposed solution, we must first agree 
there is a problem, but the ``driver shortage'' is categorically a 
myth. Extremely high rates of driver turnover among some large motor 
carriers is the real problem within our industry. In a March 2019 
examination of this issue, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 
while there was ``one segment of the trucking labor market (long-
distance TL motor freight) that has experienced high and persistent 
turnover rates for decades, the overall picture is consistent with a 
market in which labor supply responds to increasing labor demand over 
time, and a deeper look does not find evidence of a secular shortage.'' 
Furthermore, FMCSA issues over 400,000 new CDLs annually. Clearly, 
there is no shortage of new drivers entering the industry, but rather 
an unrestrained level of churn. The DRIVE-Safe Act will do nothing to 
decrease turnover and could even make matters worse by failing to 
address many of the factors that contribute to it.
    If large motor carriers truly want to solve the labor issues 
they've created within our industry, promoting the DRIVE-Safe Act is 
certainly not the solution. Instead, they should start by offering 
drivers compensation that is competitive with motor carriers who don't 
encounter high levels of churn, as well as other industries hoping to 
attract the same workers. Large fleets should also begin to improve 
working conditions as a means to maintain drivers.
    OOIDA firmly opposes the DRIVE-Safe Act, not only because it's a 
solution in search of a problem, but also because it will undoubtedly 
decrease highway safety. The bill doubles down on the failures of the 
current system by bringing younger and less experienced drivers into 
our industry. Younger drivers are proven to be less safe than their 
more experienced counterparts.

    Question 4. Have your drivers seen an increase in wages that one 
would expect to see in a labor shortage?
    Answer. No. Truckers have not seen a meaningful increase in wages 
in decades. To the contrary, professional drivers' compensation has 
failed to keep pace with inflation since 1980, effectively slashing 
truckers' wages by nearly a third. The average truck driver earned 
$38,618 in 1980, which would equate to approximately $124,000 in 2018. 
The lack of competitive wages at many large fleets has greatly 
contributed to their high turnover rates, which in some cases are as 
high as 90 to 100 percent annually.

    Question 5. As a former truck driver, what do you think Congress 
can do to improve working conditions and make trucking more enticing 
for new drivers?
    Answer. There are numerous steps Congress must take to make careers 
in trucking more attractive and sustainable for new drivers. One of the 
major challenges that drivers face on the road is a lack of available 
truck parking. When they can't find a safe parking space, drivers are 
often forced to drive past the point where they begin feeling fatigued. 
Additionally, truckers are commonly placed in no-win situations where 
they must decide to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a 
vacant lot--or violate Federal hours-of-service regulations by 
continuing to search for a safer and legal alternative. Providing more 
parking for truckers would help alleviate one of the major frustrations 
drivers experience on the job.
    Another step Congress should take is eliminating the Fair Labor 
Standards Act (FLSA) overtime exemption for truck drivers. Federal law 
appropriately requires drivers to be on-duty while they're being 
detained, yet also precludes drivers from being compensated for the 
extra time they spend completing a freight movement. This exemption was 
implemented in the 1930s to prevent drivers from working too many 
hours, but today, it simply prevents them from receiving adequate 
compensation for the work they do.
    Congress must also take steps to address excessive detention time, 
which has been linked to increased crash rates. Many drivers spend 
countless unpaid on-duty hours being detained due to the inefficiency 
of others within the supply chain. Creating a financial incentive for 
shippers and receivers to improve their efficiency in loading and 
unloading trucks would likely help reduce excessive detention and 
ensure drivers are being appropriately paid. Another way to address 
this problem is to collect more data on detention at specific shipping 
and receiving facilities and work to make this information public. 
OOIDA supports publicizing expected loading, unloading, and delay times 
at individual facilities. A national database that drivers and motor 
carriers could easily access would incentivize shippers and receivers 
to improve their operations.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                               Lewie Pugh
    The lack of information about national road restrictions on 
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers 
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units 
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or 
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger 
traffic but do not currently make information about national road 
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials 
available to users.
    As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these 
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can 
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage 
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
    As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can 
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution 
is found.
    In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial 
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road. 
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways 
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King 
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last 
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped 
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar 
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
    I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely 
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their 
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to 
appreciate the gravity of this issue.

    Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this 
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively 
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
    Answer. Better training of drivers would certainly help improve 
this problem (and many others). Many new drivers are overly-reliant on 
technology, inadvertently placing them in unsafe scenarios more 
experienced divers would know to avoid. Improved signage would also 
help reduce risks, but not if drivers are increasingly dependent on 
unreliable technology to navigate the safest and most efficient route. 
Navigation applications have the potential to improve safety on our 
highways and within our industry, but we agree there are shortcomings 
with many platforms that must be addressed. OOIDA is eager to work with 
you and other members of the Subcommittee to ensure greater clarity and 
uniformity in navigation technology.

    Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and 
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to 
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech 
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and 
preventative warnings?
    Answer. Again, improved driver training must be a part of the 
solution. However, if Congress is also considering providing additional 
funding to state and local governments to improve signage, they must 
also require these entities to promptly update existing signs when 
highways are rehabilitated. Clearances can change when new pavements 
are laid, but state and local governments often fail to keep signs 
accurate. Furthermore, signs must be placed in locations that give 
truckers the opportunity turn around and choose a more appropriate 
route. These factors also cause unnecessary hazards for our members and 
the motoring public.

    The shortage of safe overnight parking spots for truck drivers to 
rest. We all know how important it is for truck drivers to get a good 
night's sleep after a long day on the road. Driver fatigue remains a 
leading factor in large truck crashes, which killed nearly 5,000 
Americans last year alone. Well-rested drivers are more alert and 
focused and are better able to react to changes on the road ahead of 
them.
    In order to get a good night's sleep, truck drivers need to be able 
to conveniently locate a safe, legal place to park overnight. But this 
has become an increasingly difficult task, particularly in states like 
Connecticut that are located along highly trafficked interstate 
corridors.
    The American Transportation Research Institute's 2019 annual report 
identified the lack of truck parking as a significant issue facing the 
trucking industry. The report showed commercial truck drivers ranked 
the lack of truck parking as one of their greatest concern, because of 
the daily challenges it creates and the risks it poses on their 
personal safety.
    With few spaces available, drivers are often forced to park in 
overcrowded lots or park illegally along shoulders, off ramps, or in 
empty parking lots--spaces that are at best unconducive to a good 
night's sleep and at worst pose a threat to the driver's safety. I've 
also heard from many owner-operators that while conditions have been 
worsening for years, the parking shortage has now reached a crisis 
stage.

    Question 3. This is clearly a nationwide issue--in a 2015 survey 
conducted by the Federal Highway Administration, thirty-seven state 
DOT's reported that they have a problem with truck parking in their 
state. How has the lack of available safe, legal truck parking places 
impacted your members?
    Answer. A lack of truck parking has put our members in unsafe 
situations and more generally, it creates operational challenges. In a 
survey of our membership, nearly half of respondents said that they 
``often'' or ``on a regular basis'' drove beyond feeling safe and alert 
because of a lack of parking. This is a predicament no driver wants to 
encounter, but entirely too many are on a daily basis. Furthermore, our 
members are routinely put in no-win situations where they must decide 
to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a vacant lot--or 
violate Federal hours-of-service regulations by continuing to search 
for a safer and legal alternative. This creates unneeded stress and 
complications for them as they try to complete their work in a safe and 
timely manner.

    Question 4. As Congress considers the best way to invest in 
infrastructure improvements, what do you feel we can do legislatively 
to help address this serious highway safety issue?
    Answer. Congress should set aside a portion of HTF dollars for the 
exclusive purpose of expanding truck parking capacity as part of 
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Under existing 
Federal highway programs, states may use funding to construct truck 
parking facilities and safety rest areas. Unfortunately, within these 
programs, truck parking projects are left to compete with other state 
priorities. As a result, very little Federal funding has been devoted 
to expanding parking capacity. OOIDA believes the lack of dedicated 
Federal funding has contributed to the current truck parking crisis.
    We're thrilled that bipartisan legislation has been introduced in 
the U.S. House of Representatives--H.R. 6104, the Truck Parking Safety 
Improvement Act--that would set-aside funding from existing highway 
programs for projects that expand truck parking capacity. This solution 
would help states better prioritize truck parking and improve safety 
for all highway users. Through our outreach to elected officials in 
both chambers, we believe there is strong bipartisan support for this 
approach, and anticipate the introduction of a Senate companion to H.R. 
6104 in the near future.
    The bill also has broad support from stakeholders in the trucking 
industry, including the American Trucking Associations, Truckload 
Carriers Association, National Association of Small Trucking Companies, 
and the Transportation Intermediaries Association, as well as the 
National Motorists Association, which represents the motoring public.
    Maintaining the status quo will only perpetuate today's crisis, if 
not worsen conditions for our members and other highway users. We look 
forward to working with members of this Subcommittee to develop and 
advance meaningful solutions like the Truck Parking Safety Improvement 
Act.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                               Lewie Pugh
    Women in Trucking. Currently, women make up only one quarter of the 
trucking workforce and seven percent of all truck drivers, despite 
accounting for almost half of the United States' workforce. Senator 
Moran and I have introduced the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce 
Act to direct FMCSA to establish an advisory board to identify barriers 
to entry for women in the trucking industry and submit a report to 
Congress on the board's findings and recommendations.

    Question 1. Please describe the importance of recruiting and 
retaining women in the trucking industry.
    Answer. A career in trucking can be rewarding for any driver who 
works hard and operates safely. The most successful drivers are often 
able to launch their own small businesses as owner-operators. But the 
odds of doing either in today's industry are extraordinarily low. 
Unfortunately, the many factors that prevent Americans from becoming a 
driver or remaining in our industry long enough to truly succeed are 
often compounded for women. Compensation is low and working conditions 
are difficult--drivers are forced to comply with a dizzying list of 
regulations, they often have nowhere safe to park when they are 
fatigued or out of hours, they're needlessly detained for excessive 
amounts of time due to rampant inefficiencies among shippers and 
receivers, and other motorists routinely treat them with disdain. Women 
deserve every opportunity to launch productive and enriching careers in 
trucking, but recruitment and retention of women drivers will never 
improve until Congress helps address many of these foundational 
problems that negatively impact all drivers.
    That said, FMCSA has acknowledged women drivers often face a 
pattern of harassment and assault-related crimes that many of their 
male counterparts will never experience. This undoubtedly hampers 
recruitment and limits retention. We support the agency's plan to study 
the ``prevalence, seriousness and nature of the problem of harassment 
and assaults against minority and female truckers''. Completion of this 
study will help Federal regulators and those within our industry 
understand many of the problems women uniquely face and work together 
on solutions to prevent them.

    Question 2. What more can be done to remove barriers that women 
face when pursuing careers in trucking?
    Answer. Taking steps to thoroughly understand the challenges women 
drivers face in today's industry will be extremely helpful. The 
legislation you have introduced with Sen. Moran, S. 2858, is an 
important first step toward identifying these challenges and 
determining the steps that must be taken to improve the recruitment, 
retention and advancement of women drivers. OOIDA members have already 
expressed interest in participating in the board established by your 
bill. We hope we can work with you to ensure our members--those who 
have overcome many of the barriers that prevent other women from 
achieving similar success--are active participants on this important 
panel. Their experiences will not only give policymakers a better 
understanding of the current hurdles women face, but also a clear idea 
of what needs to be done to eliminate them.

    Question 3. What more can be done to improve retention of women's 
careers in trucking?
    Answer. While FMCSA is taking appropriate steps to address 
harassment and assaults against women in our industry, many of the 
measures that will keep female truckers behind the wheel are the same 
solutions that will improve the retention of all drivers: Better pay, 
better treatment, and better working conditions. One additional issue 
that may be particularly important for women truckers is access to safe 
truck parking. All truckers need a safe place to rest overnight, but 
for women, who face more serious security risks while on the road, it 
is especially important to have a safe place to park.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                               Lewie Pugh
    Promoting Careers in the Trucking Industry. I recently introduced 
the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, along with Senators 
Sullivan, Rosen, Gardner, and Cortez Masto. This legislation would 
promote careers in transportation including trucking, and--to a point 
made by Mr. Pugh in his testimony--would encourage a broader pool of 
Americans to consider transportation careers. The bill has broad 
support from industry and labor groups--including some of the 
organizations represented by the witnesses today.

    Question 1. Can you share your thoughts on the value in promoting 
careers in transportation such as trucking?
    Answer. Beginning a career as a professional driver provides 
Americans an opportunity to play a critical role in promoting the 
safety and prosperity of our Nation. As evidenced by the ongoing COVID-
19 emergency, communities across the country are relying on truckers to 
deliver the medical supplies, food, and other necessities to get them 
through this extraordinary crisis. We hope the realization that 
truckers are an integral part of every American's daily life and help 
ensure their wellbeing will generate greater interest in addressing the 
problems that currently make trucking a very difficult profession. We 
support your efforts to promote carriers in transportation, including 
trucking, through S. 3303. But the greatest way to support careers in 
trucking is to advance desperately-needed policies that improve 
compensation and working conditions. We look forward to working with 
you to advance S. 3303 and other important bills that support America's 
truckers.

    Truck Parking. Thank you for your testimony regarding truck 
parking.

    Question 2. Can you expound upon the challenge of truck-parking and 
the potential solutions you think we can help focus on at the Federal 
level?
    Answer. A lack of truck parking has put our members in unsafe 
situations and more generally, it creates operational challenges. In a 
survey of our membership, nearly half of respondents said that they 
``often'' or ``on a regular basis'' drove beyond feeling safe and alert 
because of a lack of parking. This is a predicament no driver wants to 
encounter, but entirely too many are on a daily basis. Furthermore, our 
members are routinely put in no-win situations where they must decide 
to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a vacant lot--or 
violate Federal hours-of-service regulations by continuing to search 
for a safer and legal alternative. This creates unneeded stress and 
complications for them as they try to complete their work in a safe and 
timely manner.
    Congress should set aside a portion of HTF dollars for the 
exclusive purpose of expanding truck parking capacity as part of 
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Under existing 
Federal highway programs, states may use funding to construct truck 
parking facilities and safety rest areas. Unfortunately, within these 
programs, truck parking projects are left to compete with other state 
priorities. As a result, very little Federal funding has been devoted 
to expanding parking capacity. OOIDA believes the lack of dedicated 
Federal funding has contributed to the current truck parking crisis.
    We're thrilled that bipartisan legislation has been introduced in 
the U.S. House of Representatives--H.R. 6104, the Truck Parking Safety 
Improvement Act--that would set-aside funding from existing highway 
programs for projects that expand truck parking capacity. This solution 
would help states better prioritize truck parking and improve safety 
for all highway users. Through our outreach to elected officials in 
both chambers, we believe there is strong bipartisan support for this 
approach, and anticipate the introduction of a Senate companion to H.R. 
6104 in the near future.
    The bill also has broad support from stakeholders in the trucking 
industry, including the American Trucking Associations, Truckload 
Carriers Association, National Association of Small Trucking Companies, 
and the Transportation Intermediaries Association, as well as the 
National Motorists Association, which represents the motoring public.
    Maintaining the status quo will only perpetuate today's crisis, if 
not worsen conditions for our members and other highway users. We look 
forward to working with members of this Subcommittee to develop and 
advance meaningful solutions like the Truck Parking Safety Improvement 
Act.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                              Jake Parnell
    Freight Movement. Trucks moved nearly 12 billion tons of cargo in 
2018--over 60 percent of our Nation's freight. That number is expected 
to increase to nearly 13.8 billion tons by 2030. But our current 
infrastructure is in disrepair--the American Society of Engineers 
estimate that the lack of investment in our surface transportation 
system costs households and businesses nearly $147 billion a year.
    Truckers are spending valuable time they could be otherwise moving 
goods sitting in miles of traffic due to congestion at our Nation's 
ports and blocked grade crossings. These infrastructure reforms must be 
a high priority if we are going to keep our trucks moving and cut down 
on freight congestion.

    Question 1. Do you agree that we should lift the multimodal cap in 
the INFRA program in order to address congestion at multimodal 
connectors? Why or why not?
    Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or 
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others 
providing testimony who may have such background.

    Agricultural Haulers. In your testimony, you indicate the need for 
livestock haulers to have certain exemptions from Hours of Service 
regulations, citing data that you state demonstrates livestock haulers 
are safer than other drivers.

    Question 3. Do you have data regarding the safety record of 
livestock haulers driving for more than 12 hours in a day?
    Answer. At this time, this data in the United States is 
unfortunately limited to the parameters outlined by the existing Hours 
of Service, which limit drivetime to 11 hours. However, industry would 
support a pilot program to demonstrate livestock hauler safety when 
driving more than 12 hours per day.

    Question 4. How frequently do livestock haulers find themselves 
having to unsafely unload their livestock on the side of the road, and 
how many livestock are injured or killed every year because drivers did 
not have a safe place to unload their livestock?
    Answer. Livestock haulers have an important responsibility to 
ensure animal welfare and part of their pre-trip planning is to try to 
identify places where they can safely unload if need be. Ultimately, it 
is highly preferred for the drivers to simply reach their destination, 
rather than having to unload partway along their journey. Nation-wide 
data on how often livestock haulers are in the situation of having to 
unload in an unsafe location and how many animals are injured or killed 
every year because of that situation is not reported.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                              Jake Parnell
    The lack of information about national road restrictions on 
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers 
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units 
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or 
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger 
traffic but do not currently make information about national road 
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials 
available to users.
    As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these 
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can 
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage 
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
    As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can 
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution 
is found.
    In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial 
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road. 
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways 
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King 
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last 
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped 
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar 
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
    I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely 
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their 
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to 
appreciate the gravity of this issue.

    Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this 
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively 
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
    Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or 
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others 
providing testimony who may have such background.

    Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and 
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to 
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech 
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and 
preventative warnings?
    Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or 
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others 
providing testimony who may have such background.

    The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was 
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In 
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum 
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many 
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side 
brace system was 252 pounds.

    Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing 
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also 
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and 
manufacturers across America?
    Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or 
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others 
providing testimony who may have such background.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                              Jake Parnell
    Promoting Careers in the Trucking Industry. I recently introduced 
the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, along with Senators 
Sullivan, Rosen, Gardner, and Cortez Masto. This legislation would 
promote careers in transportation including trucking, and--to a point 
made by Mr. Pugh in his testimony--would encourage a broader pool of 
Americans to consider transportation careers. The bill has broad 
support from industry and labor groups--including some of the 
organizations represented by the witnesses today.

    Question 1. Can you share your thoughts on the value in promoting 
careers in transportation such as trucking?
    Answer. The witness testifies on behalf of an organization (the 
Livestock Marketing Association) that does not have developed policy on 
this legislation.

    Livestock Haulers. You noted in your testimony some of the 
difficult challenges that livestock haulers face--from the welfare and 
security of the animals to the challenges of not having a place to 
unload the animals while a driver rests. You also noted how few 
accidents occur with livestock transporters.

    Question 2. Do you or others have information about why livestock 
haulers appear to have a better safety record?
    Answer. A livestock hauler is forced by the nature of their live 
cargo to drive slower and more cautiously than a conventional cargo 
hauler because the live animals move throughout the trailer and can be 
severely injured if the driver turns too suddenly or drives too fast. 
Safety is so important to the livestock industry that many livestock 
haulers have participated in additional specialized training, including 
the beef industry's Master Cattle Transporter (MCT) program, which 
provide instruction on proper animal handling, transportation methods, 
and focus on preventing driver fatigue.
    Due to all of this, livestock haulers boast a fantastic safety 
record. For instance, the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, conducted 
by the FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, showed 
that of 1,123 accidents involving trucks hauling cargo, a mere five 
involved livestock transporters. Similarly, Trucks Involved in Fatal 
Accidents Factbook 2008, a report conducted by the Transportation 
Research Institute, shows that of 4,352 trucks involved in fatal 
accidents, livestock haulers accounted for just 0.6 percent.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                            Sgt. John Samis
    Question 1. A concern I hear from truck drivers, especially long-
haul drivers, is that law enforcement across different states either 
focus on certain safety requirements more strictly than others, or that 
some states are generally more strict than others. Can there be 
differences in enforcement between states, and if so, is there a reason 
for that?
    Answer. While the jurisdictions strive for uniformity in how the 
North American Standard Inspection Program is conducted across the 
country, that does not mean that there will be uniformity in 
enforcement rates from state to state. There is and always will be 
differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as states use the best 
available data to design enforcement programs that are tailored to meet 
the needs of their specific state and region. Each state and area of 
the country face unique challenges to highway safety, influenced by 
differences in prevalent sectors of industry, geography and other 
factors. With limited resources, states design enforcement programs to 
address their unique safety challenges and prioritize enforcement of 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that have demonstrated the 
largest safety concerns in their area, all with the goal of reducing 
crashes and fatalities. Focused, tailored enforcement demonstrates an 
incredible responsiveness and flexibility on behalf of the various 
enforcement agencies and the ability of these jurisdictions to adapt to 
the areas of prime safety concern.
    There are a number of reasons for differences in enforcement 
priorities from state to state. Differences may be tied to trends in 
driver behavior that have been identified and enforcement is trying to 
combat. For example, a jurisdiction may focus on speeding because they 
are seeing that many drivers (car and truck) are operating in excess of 
the posted speed limits. States with high traffic corridors generally 
focus more on driving violations and driver inspections as opposed to 
vehicle inspections (i.e., parts of I-95 and I-81).
    Some states are ``probable cause'' states, which means inspection 
reports will be associated with a primary traffic offense, such as 
speeding. These states, by their nature, may have fewer inspections 
with no violations listed because they must have a reason to pull the 
vehicle over in the first place. There are also differences due to 
geographic variances. Mountainous regions will tend to have more brake 
violations, heavy rain or snow can impact trends.
    Diversity in industry results in variance as well. For example, the 
logging industry in the northeast, versus the agricultural industry in 
the Midwest. The lengths of hauls are different, vehicle types and 
configurations are different, traffic patterns and makeup, weather, 
types of roadways and terrain, etc.
    State programs not only include enforcement and inspection 
activities but also tactics like education, outreach and technology 
deployments to address the safety challenges. Continued flexibility is 
needed to enable states to address diverse safety challenges in order 
to improve highway safety.

    Detention time. Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving 
facilities beyond an agreed-on amount of time, known as detention time. 
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in 
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on 
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay 
for the driver.
    Background: Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving 
facilities beyond an agreed on amount of time, known as detention time. 
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in 
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on 
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay 
for the driver.

    Question 2. What efforts are currently being taken by trucking 
stakeholders to work with shippers to lower detention time?
    Answer. Drivers continue to face challenges with extended wait 
times at pickup and delivery locations, facing delays that impact their 
hours of service and productivity. The issue is a well-documented 
challenge, with clear impacts on motor carrier safety, particularly 
with regards to fatigue management. While CVSA is supportive of finding 
a solution to this problem, the state commercial motor vehicle 
enforcement programs and CVSA do not have the necessary expertise to 
propose specific solutions. The motor carrier and shipper/receiver 
industry are better positioned to offer suggestions.

    Question 3. Are there steps that Congress could take to address 
this issue without heavy-handed mandates?
    Answer. While CVSA is supportive of finding a solution to this 
problem, the state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and 
CVSA do not have the necessary expertise to propose specific solutions. 
The motor carrier and shipper/receiver industry are better positioned 
to offer suggestions.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                            Sgt. John Samis
    Truck Parking. I have heard from many of my constituents in law 
enforcement and the trucking community, and from you here today, that 
truck parking is a huge challenge. In my home state of Washington, 46 
percent of truck drivers say they drive fatigued as a result of 
insufficient parking. When truck stops are full, or when there is 
inadequate parking available, trucks often park on highway ramps or 
shoulders, creating a safety risk for all road users.
    Parking in unsafe areas also puts truck drivers at risk. A Federal 
survey found that 90 percent of drivers have struggled to find safe 
parking at night, and according to a Washington Department of 
Transportation study, 59 percent of truckers reported they are 
frequently concerned with safety--day or night.
    This is also an issue of freight mobility. With trucks lined up for 
miles waiting to get into our ports and across grade crossings, that is 
time that could be otherwise spent moving goods across the country. 
With freight movement expected to rise 40 percent in the next decade--
up to $26 trillion--we have to address this issue if we're going to 
keep our economy moving in the right direction.

    Question. How should we be addressing the issue of truck parking in 
a transportation reauthorization bill?
    Answer. CVSA supports investments in technology and infrastructure 
to address the Nation's truck parking shortage. The availability of 
adequate parking facilities, strategically placed throughout the U.S., 
is a critical commercial motor vehicle safety issue. Parking facilities 
need to be available to drivers who are trying to comply with hours-of-
service requirements, as well as those who are fatigued. Without 
adequate parking facilities, drivers are faced with either driving over 
hours or parking in an unsafe location. It should be noted that there 
are a number of technological solutions being discussed to help better 
manage the existing available parking. While all options should be 
explored and every little bit will help, it's important to keep in mind 
that we need more parking spaces. Technology alone will not solve this 
problem. While CVSA is supportive of finding a solution to this 
problem, the state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and 
CVSA do not have the necessary expertise to propose specific solutions. 
State agencies that manage road design and infrastructure are better 
positioned to offer suggestions.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Writtens Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to 
                            Sgt. John Samis
    Universal electronic vehicle identifier. In your testimony, you 
mention that law enforcement needs tools like the universal electronic 
vehicle identifier to improve safety.

    Question 1. How would the universal electronic vehicle identifier 
help law enforcement improve safety?
    Answer. The purpose of commercial motor vehicle enforcement is to 
ensure compliance with the Federal safety regulations. Through 
enforcement activities, commercial motor vehicle inspectors identify 
drivers and vehicles who are not operating safely and require them to 
comply with the safety regulations or discontinue operation. The 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), which dictate 
manufacturing standards, and the corresponding Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations (FMCSR), which outline the in-service maintenance 
requirements, are in place to provide the minimum requirements for safe 
operation of commercial motor vehicles. Ensuring compliance with those 
regulations improves safety. Requiring the creation of a universal 
electronic vehicle identifier would allow enforcement to reach more of 
industry and improve their ability to identify unsafe drivers and 
vehicles for intervention.
    Currently, inspectors use screening technology programs and tools, 
as well as inspection selection procedures and inspector observation to 
identify inspection targets to be examined during a roadside 
inspection. Third party screening technologies that are currently in 
use help to increase the number of vehicles, drivers and motor carriers 
that the enforcement community comes into contact with; however, some 
of these technologies are used voluntarily and others are deployed with 
varying degrees of effectiveness. A universal electronic vehicle 
identifier would allow law enforcement to be more effective in the 
inspection selection process, targeting the drivers and carriers who 
are most in need of intervention, improving safety.
    Since technologies exist today that would allow automated roadside 
identification of nearly all commercial motor vehicles, if this 
proposed concept were universally deployed, this would revolutionize 
the way commercial motor vehicle roadside monitoring, inspection and 
enforcement are conducted. In June 2019, commercial motor vehicle 
inspectors conducted a 3-day enforcement blitz where 67,072 inspections 
were conducted in North America. Of those vehicles inspected, 17.9 
percent were identified as having safety violations critical enough 
that they were placed out of service and not permitted to operate 
without fixing the violation. The deployment of a universal electronic 
vehicle identifier would improve the effectiveness of enforcement 
programs while reducing costs, for both enforcement and industry, which 
in turn will allow enforcement to better identify and prioritize those 
vehicles and drivers who are operating unsafely.
    In order to move forward with full deployment, however, enforcement 
must have a universal mechanism for electronically identifying all 
commercial motor vehicles. This can be accomplished with minimal cost 
and disruption, and the safety and economic benefits will be 
substantial for the enforcement community, motor carrier industry and 
driving public.

    Hours of Service. In your testimony, you mention the importance of 
legislation and regulations considering the impact on law enforcement.

    Question 2. Are the current hours of service rules clear and 
enforceable?
    Answer. Clear, enforceable rules are the cornerstone of an 
effective regulatory framework designed to ensure safety on our 
roadways. Regulations must be written and maintained in a way that they 
provide clear guidelines to the regulated industry and law enforcement 
officials. Overall, the current hours-of-service regulations are 
complicated. However, the trucking industry is a diverse industry and 
complicated regulations are likely unavoidable. However, steps can be 
taken to mitigate the complexity. First, continuity is critical. If 
changes to the regulations are necessary, they should be done as 
infrequently as possible. Piecemeal changes every year or two make it 
incredibly difficult for inspectors to remain up to date on the 
regulations. Limiting the frequency of updates would help address this 
and limit the number of training updates necessary.
    In addition, the current hours-of-service rules have several 
provisions that lack clarity and enforceability. This issue is further 
complicated by the numerous hours-of-service exemptions granted to 
various portions of the industry and regulatory guidance issued in lieu 
of updating the underlying regulations.
    For example, the current hours-of-service regulations require that 
drivers take a 30-minute break within the first eight hours of 
beginning their day. This provision is difficult to effectively 
enforce, as the inspector has no way of verifying whether or not the 
driver was legitimately off duty during that time or if he/she used the 
time to perform other work-related duties, such as fueling, inspection, 
or loading and unloading times. This provision gives problem drivers, 
and motor carriers, an opportunity to falsify their record of duty 
status (RODS) in an attempt to disguise, or conceal, on-duty hours. 
Enforcing this proposed rule is impossible without supporting documents 
to either verify, or refute, such entries.
    Additionally, exemptions from Federal safety regulations have the 
potential to undermine safety, while also complicating the enforcement 
process. Each exemption granted creates an additional complexity to the 
hours-of-service rules by changing the rules for different motor 
carriers or segments of the motor carrier industry. For example, the 
agricultural commodity exemption allows transporters of agricultural 
commodities to drive within 150 air-miles of their origin without 
recording any RODS. They only start recording their RODS after leaving 
the 150 air-mile radius. Not only is this unsafe because it easily 
creates a scenario where a driver can become fatigued by driving well 
beyond the hours-of-service limits, but it also requires inspectors and 
the motor carrier industry to understand the details of the exemption 
to determine if the driver qualifies for the exemption and, if they do, 
what portions (if any) of the hours-of-service regulations they are 
required to follow. This is just one example of the many exemptions, 
each one further complicating the hours-of-service regulations by 
providing special subsets of rules for different motor carriers or 
segments of the motor carrier industry to follow.
    Regulatory guidance that never gets adopted as actual regulation 
further complicates the enforcement process. In an effort to address 
the growing backlog of needed regulatory updates, the agency has come 
to rely heavily on the use of regulatory guidance to address necessary 
clarifications to the regulations, using guidance documents or 
frequently asked questions (FAQs) to correct technical errors in 
published rules or to clarify vague regulatory language within the 
safety regulations while improvements to the regulations make their way 
through the rulemaking process. However, the number of full rulemakings 
that can make it through the agency in any given year is limited by 
staff and funding, and a number of higher profile rules tend to push 
simple technical changes back in the queue, some never to be published.
    As a result, a disconnect has evolved between written regulation, 
regulatory guidance, interpretations and FAQs. A more recent example of 
this is the regulatory guidance published in Nov. 2018 on the use of 
the `personal conveyance' designation within a driver's hours-of-
service records. Personal conveyance is a provision within the 
regulations that allows for the personal use of a commercial motor 
vehicle that does not count towards a driver's hours-of-service limits. 
The intent of this designation is to allow a driver to travel for short 
distances to do things like find a safe place to park, eat a meal, etc. 
The published guidance significantly altered how personal conveyance is 
interpreted and applied, without changing the actual regulations. Most 
notably, the provision, which provides no maximum on how many miles or 
hours a driver can operate under personal conveyance, allowed vehicles 
to be laden with cargo while operating under the personal conveyance 
designation. This change has made it much more complicated for industry 
and enforcement to determine when exactly a driver qualifies for 
personal conveyance. Further, it has made the overall hours-of-service 
regulations less enforceable because a driver can drive far beyond the 
hours-of-service limits to further their load while falsely claiming 
they were using the vehicle for personal use. The actual reason for a 
driver's movements is very difficult to verify during a roadside 
inspection when they claim to be operating under personal conveyance, 
undermining the enforceability of the hours-of-service limits. To 
address the personal conveyance issue, CVSA supports the establishment 
of a maximum distance the personal conveyance designation can be used 
each day.
    Clear and enforceable regulations provide both the motor carrier 
industry and law enforcement with clear direction on how to ensure 
safety. Clear regulations help improve industry adherence to the rules 
and enforceability ensures that law enforcement is able to verify 
compliance.

    Underride Guards. In their March 2019 report, Truck Underride 
Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research Needed 
(GAO-19-264), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends 
that USDOT take steps to standardize definitions for underride crashes 
and data fields, share information with law enforcement to better 
identify underride crashes, establish annual inspection requirements 
for rear guards and conduct additional research. DOT concurred with 
GAO's recommendations.

    Question 3. Do you support the DOT and GAO assessment that the 
number of underride accidents has been undercounted and that better 
mechanisms for recording these types of accidents is warranted?
    Answer. A better mechanism for collecting quality and uniform crash 
data, including data on underride crashes, is needed. Quality data is a 
fundamental piece of an effective commercial motor vehicle safety 
enforcement program. Commercial motor vehicle crash data identifies 
trends and problem areas that are utilized to craft enforcement and 
education initiatives to target specific safety problems. Current 
variances in definitions, data collection methods and data points 
collected from crashes make comparing data on a national scale 
difficult. These variances have likely resulted in underreporting of 
underride crashes, as well as crashes involving fatigue and other crash 
factors.
    To improve the quality of crash data, CVSA encourages the adoption 
of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). The MMUCC provide 
a standardized data set for describing vehicle crashes. Universal 
adoption of the MMUCC would allow for a more comparable data set at the 
national level to better evaluate the causes of crashes to inform 
policy and program decisions.

    Question 4. For roadside inspections examining all parts of a 
vehicle, including the rear guard, would a standardized set of 
definitions and procedures benefit law enforcement efforts to determine 
whether large trucks are operating safely? Please explain.
    Answer. Standardized definitions and procedures help ensure that 
both the law enforcement community and the motor carrier industry 
understand the minimum safety requirements. Clear, enforceable rules 
are the cornerstone of an effective regulatory framework designed to 
ensure safety on our roadways. Regulations must be written and 
maintained in a way that they provide clear guidelines to the regulated 
industry and law enforcement officials. One of CVSA's core tenants is 
enforcement uniformity. Clear standards provide inspectors with the 
information they need to evaluate commercial motor vehicle safety.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                            Sgt. John Samis
    The lack of information about national road restrictions on 
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers 
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units 
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or 
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger 
traffic but do not currently make information about national road 
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials 
available to users.
    As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these 
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can 
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage 
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
    As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can 
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution 
is found.
    In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial 
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road. 
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways 
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King 
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last 
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped 
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar 
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
    I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely 
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their 
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to 
appreciate the gravity of this issue.

    Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this 
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively 
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
    Answer. CVSA appreciates your efforts to address the issue of 
commercial motor vehicles traveling on roads that they are not 
permitted to be on. While CVSA agrees this issue merits attention, the 
state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and CVSA do not 
have the necessary expertise to propose solutions. State agencies that 
manage road design and infrastructure are better positioned to offer 
solutions.

    Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and 
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to 
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech 
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and 
preventative warnings?
    Answer. CVSA appreciates your efforts to address the issue of 
commercial motor vehicles traveling on roads that they are not 
permitted to be on. While CVSA agrees this issue merits attention, the 
state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and CVSA do not 
have the necessary expertise to propose solutions. State agencies that 
manage road design and infrastructure are better positioned to offer 
solutions.

    The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was 
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In 
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum 
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many 
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side 
brace system was 252 pounds.

    Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing 
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also 
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and 
manufacturers across America?
    Answer. While CVSA is supportive of improving crash worthiness 
standards, we do not have the necessary expertise to speak to the 
potential job creation of a requirement for aluminum side underride 
guards.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                            Sgt. John Samis
    Question 1. You noted in your testimony that there have been 
numerous regulatory delays at FMCSA and that your organization has seen 
many of your petitions and calls for technical corrections go 
unaddressed. Are these failures to act contributing to safety issues 
and inefficiencies in the industry?
    Answer. The buildup of necessary technical corrections in the 
safety regulations causes confusion and negatively impacts safety. The 
purpose of commercial motor vehicle enforcement is to ensure compliance 
with the Federal safety regulations. Through enforcement activities, 
commercial motor vehicle inspectors identify drivers and vehicles who 
are not operating safely and require them to comply with the safety 
regulations or discontinue operation. Clear, enforceable rules are the 
cornerstone of an effective regulatory framework designed to ensure 
safety on our roadways. It is imperative that those subject to the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) understand their 
responsibilities and that those tasked with enforcing safety 
regulations can do so effectively to ensure the quality and uniformity 
of the more than four million roadside inspections conducted annually 
throughout North America. Over time, technical errors have resulted in 
inconsistent, outdated and redundant regulatory language. These errors 
have compounded to make portions of the regulations challenging to 
understand which in turn makes it more difficult for industry and 
enforcement to understand the minimum safety requirements. This results 
in a lower level of compliance and more difficulty enforcing the 
regulations, which negatively impacts safety.
    There are several factors that have contributed to the growing 
delay in regulatory action at FMCSA. We recognize that many of these 
factors are outside the agency's control. However, the result is that 
the agency is struggling to meet one of its basic responsibilities, 
which is to maintain the FMCSRs, something only the agency can do, in 
order to keep pace with industry and ensure that motor carriers are 
being held to a standard that will ensure the safe operation of 
vehicles on our Nation's roadways. FMCSA must be given the resources 
and support to allow the agency to prioritize the day to day 
maintenance of the regulations, while also meeting obligations set 
forth by Congress. Allowing this critical responsibility to lapse does 
a disservice to both the motor carrier industry and the enforcement 
community and undermines the agency's efforts to improve safety.

    Question 2. You noted that in the FAST Act we directed FMCSA to 
improve its information technology (IT) systems and data quality. You 
also noted that you're tracking FMCSA's progress on this--can you 
provide an update on implementation here?
    Answer. Effective IT systems are critical for improving safety. 
These systems ensure that commercial motor vehicle inspectors have the 
information they need to verify driver, vehicle and motor carrier 
safety. Additionally, these systems provide the infrastructure to 
collect data that informs the design of commercial motor vehicle safety 
programs to make sure resources are being used to target the greatest 
safety needs. In terms of FMCSA's progress on implementing the FAST Act 
requirements to improve these IT systems, it is CVSA's understanding 
that FMCSA will be issuing a request for proposal (RFP) sometime during 
the second quarter of 2020, soliciting bids to replace the current 
roadside inspection data collection software, ASPEN. The ASPEN program 
is a legacy software program that has outlived its life cycle and is in 
dire need of replacement. ASPEN was developed by the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), prior to the creation of FMCSA on January 1, 
2000, as the data collection tool for the roadside enforcement and 
inspection community. Through this process FMCSA should select a new 
software program that is able to improve roadside inspection data by 
hard-coding violations and implement smart logic to assist with 
directing the data into the correct format and location, which will 
greatly enhance the roadside inspection data collection process. In 
addition, the state's access and management of their roadside 
enforcement and inspection data is managed through another FMCSA legacy 
system called SAFETYNET. From CVSA's understanding, the replacement of 
the SAFETYNET platform may be included in the upcoming RFP.

                                  [all]