U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–434 

TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION: AUTOMATED 

TRUCKS AND OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

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

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 13, 2017 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 38 

Statement of Senator Young ................................................................................... 40 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 42 

Statement of Senator Lee ....................................................................................... 44 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 45 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 47 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 49 

Statement of Senator Inhofe ................................................................................... 51 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 53 

Statement of Senator Capito .................................................................................. 55 

Statement of Senator Duckworth ........................................................................... 57 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 59 

WITNESSES

Scott G. Hernandez, Colonel, Colorado State Patrol ............................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Troy Clarke, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Navistar, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Deborah A.P. Hersman, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council .............................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) .............................................................................................. 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Ken Hall, General Secretary Treasurer, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ....................................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

APPENDIX

Article dated September 12, 2017 entitled, ‘‘Self-Driving Truck Technology 

Is the Answer to Safer Roads’’ from Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, 

Consumer Technology Association ...................................................................... 65 

Letter dated September 12, 2017 from Jacqueline Gillan, President, Affairs, 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; and Catherine Chase, Vice President of Governmental, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety ..................... 66 

Letter dated September 12, 2017 from Beth Osborne, Interim Director, Transportation for America ........................................................................................... 68 

Letter dated September 12, 2017 from Timothy Blubaugh, Executive Vice 

President, Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association ................................ 70 

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, prepared statement .......... 71 

Hon. David L. Strickland, Esq., Counsel, Self-Driving Coalition for Safer 

Streets and Partner, Venable LLP, prepared statement .................................. 72 

Eric Meyhofer, Head of Advanced Technologies Group (ATG), Uber Technologies, Inc., prepared statement ...................................................................... 75 

Letter dated September 21, 2017 from Alex Rodrigues, CEO and Co-founder, 

Embark and Jonathan Morris, Head of Public Policy, Embark ....................... 78 

Truck Safety Coalition, prepared statement ......................................................... 81 

Page

IV 

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to: 

Colonel Scott G. Hernandez ............................................................................. 84 

Troy Clarke ....................................................................................................... 84 

Response to written question submitted to Deborah A.P. Hersman by: 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 84 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 85 

Response to written question submitted to Chris Spear by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 85 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 86 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 87 

Response to written question submitted to Ken Hall by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 87 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 88 

(1) 

TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION: AUTOMATED 

TRUCKS AND OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Peters, Wicker, Moran, 

Inhofe, Capito, Lee, Gardner, Young, Cantwell, Duckworth, 

Blumenthal, Markey, Booker, Hassan, and Cortez Masto. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Before we begin, I certainly want 

to express our support for and thoughts and prayers for all the victims of the recent hurricanes, and most recently, of course, in the 

State of Florida. And our colleague and the ranking member on 

this Committee, Senator Nelson, he and Senator Rubio are there 

today, as they should be, and looking out for the needs of their constituents. And so, again, we certainly want to express our support 

and prayers for them and for the people of Florida as they deal 

with a horrific storm and its aftermath. 

This Committee has been working for some time in a bipartisan 

fashion to address the advancement of autonomous vehicles. And I 

especially want to thank Senator Peters for partnering with me in 

this effort. I also appreciate the contributions of Ranking Member 

Nelson, who, as I said, is unfortunately unable to join us today. 

We’ve put a lot of work into this effort to date, and I look forward 

to continuing to work with my colleagues to introduce and pass bipartisan legislation. 

Given this Committee’s broad jurisdiction over transportation, 

interstate commerce, and vehicle safety, we are well-positioned to 

oversee and address the emergence of this transformative technology. Beginning last Congress, we’ve held two hearings and 

hosted a demonstration of this technology for Committee members. 

With today’s hearing, we’ll take a closer look at the promise and 

implications of the technology for trucks and larger vehicles. 

Automated vehicle technology holds great promise to transform 

transportation in this country: expanding mobility, reducing traffic 

congestion and related emissions, and increasing productivity, 

among other benefits. But the most exciting aspect of this transVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
2 

formative advancement is the potential to save thousands of lives 

every year on our Nation’s highways. 

In 2015, more than 35,000 people died in major vehicle crashes 

in the United States. With more than 90 percent of those deaths 

attributable to human error, automated vehicles have the potential 

to reduce these tragic numbers dramatically. 

Too many lives are lost on our roads, and I look forward to hearing from Ms. Hersman about how automated vehicles, including 

trucks, can help to reduce this number. 

Trucks share our roads, deliver our goods, and keep our economy 

moving. Including trucks in the conversation about automated vehicles is important as we week to improve safety. It also puts our 

economy on a level playing field as other countries around the 

world deploy automated freight trucks. 

In 2015, trucks traveled over 280 billion miles to carry over 70 

percent of the goods by tonnage on our roadways. A 2017 Energy 

Information Administration study projected that automated trucks 

could yield fuel savings between 6.7 and 18.6 percent, improving 

our economic competitiveness, lowering consumer prices, and supporting job growth. I am glad that Mr. Spear has joined us today 

to speak to the impacts of trucking on our economy and the role 

of automated trucks in the future of transportation innovation. 

Testing and development is already ongoing as companies in the 

U.S. have increasingly explored the potential benefits of automated 

trucks. Companies like Uber, Tesla, Google, Embark, Starsky, and 

others have invested in automated truck technology. 

Truck manufacturers like Navistar are actively pursuing automated technologies in trucks. Colonel Scott Hernandez, Chief of the 

Colorado State Patrol, who joins us today, has seen this technology 

firsthand. Last year, he participated in a test of Otto, now Uber’s 

truck startup, which drove 120 miles on Interstate 25 in Colorado. 

As other countries devote significant attention and effort to stimulating innovation in this area, strong Federal leadership will be 

necessary to maintain our position as global leader and ensure that 

these vehicles are tested and deployed safely. 

Just yesterday, Secretary Chao announced the Department of 

Transportation has updated its policy guidance on automated vehicles. I am pleased to see action from the administration on this 

transformative technology. DOT’s new guidance improves upon 

similar efforts by the prior administration and takes the same position regarding the inclusion of all motor vehicles, both cars and 

trucks, from light to heavy duty, under the same regulatory framework. And though their approaches differ, states that have passed 

automated vehicle legislation similarly cover all motor vehicles, 

cars and trucks. In doing so, they have recognized the need to address automated motor vehicles cohesively, without leaving out certain vehicle classes. 

Of course, it’s important to consider all impacts of this new technology. It is crucial that we hear about the potential impact on 

jobs, and engage in a clear-eyed discussion about how to best prepare for the future. So I am glad that Mr. Hall is able to join us 

today. 

There are over 3 million commercial vehicle drivers in the U.S., 

and they are the backbone of the economy. Technological advanceVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
3 

ments have the potential to affect them in very different ways, including in positive ways. Technology should make a driver’s life 

easier and safer, which, in turn, will improve the rest of our transportation system and those who use it every day. 

Automation will bring many benefits and many challenges, but 

they are not entirely new challenges. As former President Johnson 

said in response to the challenges of automation during his term, 

and I quote, ‘‘Automation is not our enemy. Automation can be the 

ally of our prosperity if we will just look ahead, if we will understand what is to come, and if we will set our course wisely after 

proper planning for the future,’’ end quote. I’m glad we are continuing that discussion today. I look forward to hearing from all of 

our witnesses as we move forward with legislation to address automated vehicles. 

And I now want to turn to Senator Peters for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this very important hearing. 

As the Chairman mentioned, I’m in this seat today because Senator Nelson is back home in his great State of Florida helping to 

begin the very long recovery effort after the devastating Hurricane 

Irma, and certainly our thoughts and prayers are with Senator 

Nelson as well as with all of the people of the State of Florida. 

As the Chairman mentioned last Friday, he and I released a discussion draft of our self-driving car legislation, which is the result 

of months of collaborative effort, countless meetings with stakeholders across the spectrum of interests, and further bipartisan 

work from Senator Nelson. I want to thank Chairman Thune and 

his staff for the many long hours and effort that have gone into 

this bipartisan draft. 

This legislation will provide the first-ever changes in Federal law 

targeted at ushering in a new era of mobility and transportation 

innovation. The bill will facilitate the safe development and adoption of self-driving cars, reduce existing regulatory barriers, and establish a new regulatory framework to support this innovation 

going forward. 

Importantly, it will also ensure that the United States leads the 

international race to deploy these new technologies. We must develop and build them here in our country, creating new 21st century manufacturing jobs as well. 

For the remainder of this month, we will work diligently to resolve and finalize the outstanding issues in this draft legislation, 

including the topic of today’s hearing, whether highly automated 

trucks and buses should be part of this particular legislation, or addressed in some future piece of legislation. 

I will note that while gathering feedback on Chairman Thune’s 

and my draft legislation, many stakeholders were clear that the 

prospect of self-driving trucks raises a very different set of issues 

from self-driving cars, and ultimately, those same stakeholders expressed serious concerns with including self-driving trucks in this 

4 

bill without a much more robust discussion and evaluation of their 

impact by industry, academia, and government. 

I will also note that our draft legislation was informed by two 

Commerce Committee hearings, in March of 2016 and June of 

2017, and two iterations of NHTSA’s Federal automated vehicle 

policy, all of which were focused on highly automated, lightweight 

passenger cars, not trucks. 

And, finally, I will note that the House recently passed its selfdriving vehicle legislation unanimously without the inclusion of 

self-driving trucks weighing over 10,001 pounds. 

It is indisputable that the trucking industry is critically important to our economy and to the day-to-day consumer needs, delivering more than 10 billion tons of freight per year and employing 

more than 3 million Americans as truck drivers. The same can be 

said of the bus industry, which provides important transportation 

options for many Americans, and creates thousands of jobs. 

Major changes to these industries, brought on by high levels of 

automation, will have a major impact on jobs, transportation, and 

the economy, not to mention roadway safety. And we need to make 

sure that when we do establish a regulatory framework for selfdriving trucks, we get it right, after having considered all of the 

implications. 

For example, we need to be able to answer some fundamental 

questions. For example, What is the trucking industry’s timeline 

for deployment of highly automated trucks? Will the industry deploy Levels 4 or 5 automated trucks, or will it stick to lower levels 

of automation? What specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards will highly automated trucks need exemptions from? Do the 

unique characteristics of the trucking industry require additional 

safeguards for highly automated trucks, particularly for safety and 

cybersecurity issues? How will changes to the vehicle safety standards impact operations and enforcement? And should we be considering those impacts now? What are the job impacts of highly automated trucks? And what are the industry’s plans for retraining or 

reassigning the drivers who are in danger of losing their jobs? 

But in our discussions to date, we have not gotten as clear of an 

understanding on issues related to self-driving trucks as we have 

during our countless discussions on self-driving cars. As a result, 

I’m of the mind that highly automated trucks are not ripe for inclusion in this bill. 

Before I close, I want to be clear that improving safety on our 

highways is critically important to me. It is one of the reasons why 

advancing self-driving car legislation is so important to me as well. 

But I also recognize that in the long term, self-driving trucks and 

buses are also intended to improve safety on our highways. This is 

certainly clear. But I question assertions that excluding self-driving 

cars—or trucks, excuse me—I question assertions that excluding 

self-driving trucks from this particular bill will result in less safe 

roads, and that they don’t merit special considerations going forward. We cannot allow such premature conclusions to stand in this 

Committee’s way of talking specifics and getting the answers we 

need to have a more complete understanding of the safety, workforce, and policy implications of highly automated trucks. 

5 

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today 

and for helping start this very important conversation, and I look 

forward to the testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Peters follows:] 

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

Thank you to the Chairman for calling this important hearing. 

I’m in this seat today because Sen. Nelson is back home in his great state of Florida, helping to begin the long recovery effort after the devastating Hurricane Irma, 

and our thoughts are certainly with him and his constituents this morning. 

As the Chairman mentioned, last Friday he and I released a discussion draft of 

our self-driving car legislation, which is a result of months of collaborative effort, 

countless meetings with stakeholders across the spectrum of interests, and further 

bipartisan work with Senator Nelson. 

I want to thank Chairman Thune and his staff for the long hours and effort that 

have gone into our bipartisan draft. 

This legislation will provide the first-ever changes in Federal law targeted at ushering in a new era in mobility and transportation innovation. 

The bill will facilitate the safe development and adoption of self-driving cars, reduce existing regulatory barriers, and establish a new regulatory framework to support this innovation going forward. 

Importantly, it will also ensure that the United States leads the international 

race to deploy these new technologies. We must develop and build them here, creating new 21st century manufacturing jobs in the United States. 

For the remainder of this month, we will work diligently to resolve and finalize 

the outstanding issues in this draft legislation—including the topic of today’s hearing—whether highly-automated trucks and buses should be part of this particular 

legislation, or addressed in a separate bill. 

I will note that while gathering feedback on Chairman Thune’s and my draft legislation, many stakeholders were clear that the prospect of self-driving trucks raises 

a very different set of issues from self-driving cars. And—ultimately—those same 

stakeholders expressed serious concerns with including self-driving trucks in this 

bill without a much more robust discussion and evaluation of their impact by industry, academia, and government. 

I will also note that our draft legislation was informed by two Commerce Committee hearings—in March 2016 and June 2017—and two iterations of NHTSA’s 

Federal Automated Vehicle Policy. All of which were focused on highly-automated 

light-weight, passenger cars—not trucks. 

And finally, I will note that the House recently passed its self-driving vehicle legislation unanimously, without the inclusion of self-driving trucks weighing over 

10,001 pounds. 

It is indisputable that the trucking industry is critically important to our economy 

and to our day-to-day consumer needs, delivering more than 10 billion tons of 

freight-per-year and employing more than 3 million Americans as truck drivers. 

The same can be said of the bus industry, which provides important transportation options for many Americans and creates thousands of jobs. 

Major changes to these industries brought on by high levels of automation will 

have major impacts on jobs, transportation and the economy—not to mention roadway safety. 

And we need to make sure that when we do establish a regulatory framework for 

self-driving trucks—we get it right after having considered all of the implications. 

For example, we need to be able to answer fundamental questions like, what is 

the trucking industry’s timeline for deployment of highly-automated trucks? 

• Will the industry deploy levels 4 or 5 automated trucks, or will it stick to lower 

levels of automation? 

• What specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards will highly-automated 

trucks need exemptions from? 

• Do the unique characteristics of the trucking industry require additional safeguards for highly-automated trucks, particularly for safety and cybersecurity 

issues? 

• How will changes to the vehicle safety standards impact operations and enforcement? And should we be considering those impacts now? 

6 

• What are the job impacts of highly-automated trucks and what are the industry’s plans for retraining or reassigning the drivers who are in danger of being 

out of work? 

But in our discussions to date, we have not gotten as clear of an understanding 

on issues related to self-driving trucks as we have during our countless discussions 

on self-driving cars. As a result, I am of the mind that highly-automated trucks are 

not ripe for inclusion in this bill. 

Before I close, I want to be clear that improving safety on our highways is critically important to me. It is one of the reasons why advancing this self-driving car 

legislation is so important to me. And I recognize that in the long-term, self-driving 

trucks and buses are also intended to improve safety on our highways. That is certainly clear. But I question assertions that excluding self-driving trucks from this 

particular bill will result in less safe roads and that they don’t merit special considerations going forward. We cannot allow such premature conclusions to stand in this 

Committee’s way of talking specifics—and getting the answers we need to have a 

more complete understanding of the safety, workforce, and policy implications of 

highly-automated trucks. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today and for helping to start 

the conversation on this very important topic. I look forward to your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

And we’ll move now to our panel. We want to thank you all for 

being here and welcome you, and look forward, obviously, to hearing from you. We would ask, if you can, to confine your oral remarks as close to 5 minutes as possible. Your entire statement will 

be included as part of the record, but it will maximize the opportunity for members of the Committee to ask questions. 

We’ll start on my left, and your right, with Colonel Scott Hernandez, who is Chief of Colorado State Patrol, from Lakewood, Colorado. We’ll move then to Mr. Troy Clarke, who is Chief Executive 

Officer of Navistar; Ms. Deborah Hersman, who is the President 

and Chief Executive Officer of the National Safety Council; Mr. 

Chris Spear, who is President and Chief Executive Officer of the 

American Trucking Associations; and Mr. Ken Hall, who is the 

General Secretary-Treasurer of the International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters. 

So, Colonel Hernandez, if you would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT G. HERNANDEZ, COLONEL, 

COLORADO STATE PATROL 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. Absolutely. Good morning. Good morning, 

Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, and members of the Committee. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing and for inviting me 

here today to discuss the role automated vehicles will play in the 

future and how they may improve safety on our Nation’s highways. 

My name is Scott Hernandez, and I’m the Colonel of the Colorado State Patrol, and I am honored to lead 1,200 members whose 

primary goal is to save lives on our highways. 

This year, 410 people have been killed on Colorado roadways, a 

staggering number. We are committed to reducing the number of 

people killed eventually to zero. The enforcement community is excited about the potential improvements to roadway safety that are 

possible with the deployment of autonomous vehicles. Our commitment is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities on our nation’s 

highways, and we know automated technology has already saved 

lives through the elimination of human error, such as distracted 

driving and many other unsafe driving habits. 

7 

I am also a member of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. 

CVSA, which every state is a member, works 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. 

Recognizing the tremendous potential benefits, CVSA has long 

been a supporter of legislation, regulation, and policies that encourage the deployment of safety technologies, proven through the independent research to improve CMV safety. 

Even through preventing crashes or mitigating the severity of 

crashes, autonomous vehicles are the natural next progression in 

vehicle safety technology, and the enforcement community stands 

ready to assist in making sure that these technologies are deployed 

as seamlessly and as effectively as possible. 

In the late summer of 2016, Otto approached the State of Colorado expressing interest in conducting an intrastate delivery in an 

autonomous commercial vehicle. With consideration of the fact that 

there are no laws or regulations prohibiting the operation of autonomous vehicles to include this scenario in Colorado, we chose to 

partner with Otto to ensure safety remains paramount. We also 

understood the potential for government and enforcement to learn 

from the process in order to participate in reasonable regulations 

in the future. 

During the early morning hours of October 20, 2016, an autonomous commercial vehicle delivered a product traveling 120 miles 

from Ft. Collins, Colorado, to Colorado Springs in a Level 4 autonomous demonstration. Soon after entering southbound I–25 from the 

Ft. Collins Port of Entry, the driver placed the vehicle in autonomous mode and retreated to the space behind and between the 

driver passenger seat. The commercial vehicle traveled southbound 

on I–25 again for over 120 miles until the driver took over the controls and exited the interstate toward the terminal. The demonstration highlighted the future possibilities and use of autonomous 

commercial vehicles. 

The Colorado State Patrol and Colorado Department of Transportation took extensive measures to reduce the risk associated with 

this demonstration. We used NHTSA’s ‘‘Federal Autonomous Vehicle Policy’’ and California’s autonomous vehicle laws and rules as 

guidance. Pre-event testing was monitored for consistency and 

achievement through specific safety performance gates, ranging 

from off-road testing to extensive on-road testing. The truck was inspected and deemed to be without a violation by CVSA-certified 

safety inspectors, and the company underwent a safety audit to ensure that it had appropriate level of safety management practices 

in place to safely operate in commerce. 

The State Patrol and Department of Transportation received detailed weekly briefings on performance through required safety and 

testing protocols, including testing of scenario plans for risk and 

fallback. 

In an effort to ensure the demonstration was completed in a safe 

manner for all involved, the State Patrol escorted the autonomous 

vehicle in a similar fashion as a motorcade or rolling special event, 

consistently monitoring safety protocols and situational assessment. While we will still need to work toward total solutions, the 

8 

Colorado State Patrol made progress toward understanding the 

perspective of other governmental agencies, understanding autonomous vehicle crash investigations, understanding why cybersecurity will be essential as this technology progresses, understanding 

how the vehicle systems work, and how to begin advancing the 

process of standardized inspection procedures, understanding the 

development of a unique regulatory framework, and how to better 

partner with all stakeholders. 

This demonstration illustrated the probability that autonomous 

commercial motor vehicles, when operated during the right location, time, and situation, could reduce crash risk and traffic congestion. Additionally, the demonstration has provided important information and experience to the Colorado State Patrol and our partners responsible for establishing the necessary legal and regulatory 

framework for the testing and implementation of autonomous vehicle technologies. 

Clearly, technological advances in the past have saved lives, and 

clearly technology will continue to save lives in the future. Our experience in Colorado makes it clear that it is time to begin planning in earnest for the deployment of semi and fully automated 

CMVs. As this Committee moves forward with legislation setting 

the national framework to guide the deployment of autonomous vehicles, we believe that consideration must be given to CMV industry. We all have many questions that need to be addressed as we 

work toward deployment of these technologies. 

Many questions need to be answered before autonomous vehicles 

can be allowed to enter the driving population. I want to stress 

that is the purpose of these questions, is not—that the purpose of 

these questions is not to slow innovation or create roadblocks to the 

technology. The enforcement community recognizes the safety benefits and welcome the change—any changes that improves roadway 

safety. However, we must ensure that inspectors, investigators, and 

industry understand the role of this technology and how it will impact CMV enforcement programs. 

We strongly encourage you to consider all facets of this issue, including what to do once the vehicles are on the roads. Doing so will 

help avoid uncertainty for the motor carrier industry and the enforcement community. 

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this timely discussion on the future of automated commercial vehicles. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Hernandez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT G. HERNANDEZ, COLONEL, 

COLORADO STATE PATROL

Introduction 

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for holding this important hearing and for inviting me here today to discuss the role automated vehicles will play in the future of safety on our Nation’s 

highways. 

My name is Scott Hernandez. I am the Colonel of the Colorado State Patrol. As 

the Colonel, I am responsible for leading approximately 1,200 members whose primary goal is to save lives on our highways. In Colorado to date 247 people have 

been killed, a staggering number of people. We are committed to driving that number down, eventually to zero. 

9 

I am also a member of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), a nonprofit association comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and Federal commercial motor vehicle safety officials and industry representatives. We represent the 

state agencies tasked with the responsibility 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 

U.S. state, territory and possession, all Canadian provinces and territories, and the 

country of Mexico are CVSA members. 

First, let me say that the enforcement community is excited about the potential 

improvements to roadway safety that are possible with the deployment of autonomous vehicles. Our commitment is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities on our 

Nation’s roadways, and we see great potential in autonomous technology. As we all 

know, driver behavior is the leading cause of motor vehicle crashes. Technology can 

help eliminate or reduce the risk of human error and driver distraction. In fact, 

basic versions of vehicle autonomy are already operating on our roads, preventing 

crashes. Examples of such technologies include enhanced anti-lock braking system 

(ABS) monitoring systems, vehicle stability systems, lane departure warning systems and collision warning systems. These systems all improve vehicle safety by 

helping keep vehicles in their lanes and operating at a safe distance from one another. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has repeatedly called for deployment of safety technologies on both commercial and personal vehicles to help 

reduce crashes and save lives. In fact, NTSB has called on the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish performance standards and 

mandate deployment of collision avoidance technologies on commercial motor vehicles in its annual NTSB Most Wanted List. Recognizing the tremendous potential 

benefits, CVSA has long been a supporter of legislation, regulation 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. Autonomous vehicles are the natural 

next progression in vehicle safety technology and the enforcement community stands 

ready to assist in making sure that the technology is deployed as seamlessly and 

as effectively as possible. 

In the late summer of 2016, OTTO approached the State of Colorado expressing 

interest in conducting an intrastate delivery using an autonomous commercial motor 

vehicle. With consideration to the fact that there were no laws or regulations prohibiting the operation of autonomous vehicles to include this scenario in Colorado, 

we chose to partner with OTTO to ensure safety remained paramount. Colorado policy makers also understood the potential for government and enforcement to learn 

from the process in order to participate in reasonable regulations in the future. 

During the early morning hours of Oct. 20, 2016, an autonomous commercial 

motor vehicle, specifically a 3-axle truck-tractor and 2-axle semi-trailer vehicle combination, delivered a product traveling 120 miles from Ft. Collins to Colorado 

Springs, Colorado, in a level 4 autonomous demonstration. Soon after entering 

southbound on I–25 from the Ft. Collins Port of Entry, the driver placed the commercial motor vehicle in autonomous mode and retreated to the space behind and 

between the driver and passenger seat. The vehicle traveled southbound on I–25 for 

over 120 miles until the driver took over the controls and exited the interstate towards the terminal. The demonstration highlighted the future possibilities and use 

of autonomous commercial motor vehicles. 

The Colorado State Patrol and Department of Transportation took extensive 

measures to reduce the risks associated with this demonstration. We used NTHSA’s 

‘‘Federal Autonomous Vehicle Policy’’ and California’s autonomous vehicle laws and 

rules as guidance. Pre-event testing was monitored for consistency and achievement 

through specific safety performance gates, ranging from off-road testing to extensive 

on-road testing. The truck was inspected and deemed to be without a violation by 

CVSA-certified roadside safety inspectors and the company underwent a safety 

audit to ensure it had the appropriate level of safety management practices in place 

to safely operate in commerce. Two separate rides covering over 200 miles were conducted by a Colorado State Patrol commander to visually confirm the technology. 

The Colorado State Patrol and the Colorado Department of Transportation received 

detailed weekly briefings on performance through required safety and testing protocols, including testing of scenario plans for risks and fallback. 

OTTO provided certification of safety assessments, vehicle, driver and insurance. 

The safety assessments certification included system safety, validation and data 

sharing. Driver certification included lists of all drivers, driver training and overall 

10 

experience. Vehicle certification included the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). 

In an effort to ensure the demonstration was completed in a safe manner for all 

involved, the Colorado State Patrol escorted the autonomous commercial motor vehicle in a similar fashion as a motorcade or rolling special event, constantly monitoring safety protocols and situational assessment. Constant communication 

throughout the event existed between the driver/passenger, engineers and state 

troopers. 

The demonstration was beneficial for law enforcement, as we were able to learn 

valuable lessons. While we will still need to work toward total solutions, the Colorado State Patrol made progress toward understanding the perspective of other governmental agencies, autonomous vehicle crash investigations, why cyber security 

will be essential as this technology progresses, the development of a unique regulatory framework and how to better partner with all stakeholders. 

The proof of concept in Colorado indicates that self-driving vehicles will play a 

critical role in improving traffic safety and may reduce congestion in the future. 

This demonstration has provided important information and experience to the Colorado State Patrol and our partners responsible for establishing the necessary legal 

and regulatory framework for the testing and implementation of autonomous vehicle 

technologies. Technological advances in the past have saved lives and, clearly, technology will continue to save lives in the future as the Colorado State Patrol, the 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the law enforcement community moves toward zero deaths on our roadways. 

Our experience in Colorado makes it clear that it’s time to begin planning in earnest for the deployment of semi-and fully-automated commercial motor vehicles. As 

this Committee moves forward with legislation setting a national framework to 

guide the deployment of autonomous vehicles, we believe that consideration must 

be given to the commercial motor vehicle industry. How will autonomous vehicles 

affect enforcement of Federal safety regulations? Which regulations apply to autonomous vehicles and which will have to be modified to adapt to the new technology? 

Are there regulations that autonomous vehicles should be exempted from entirely? 

For example, how will Federal hours-of-service requirements apply? If there is a 

person in the cab while the vehicle is operating autonomously, does that person 

need to maintain their record of duty status? If so, how should that time be recorded? On duty, driving? On duty, not driving? Off duty? 

We also have questions regarding the maintenance or mechanical fitness of the 

underlying components of the autonomous vehicle system; such as, ABS monitoring 

systems, vehicle stability systems, lane departure warning systems, collision warning systems, etc. If the underlying systems are not functioning properly, then the 

autonomous system will not work either. We will need to review current inspection 

procedures and regulatory requirements to ensure that inspectors know how to 

verify that a system is functional and what to do if it is not. If an autonomous vehicle is placed out of service for critical safety violations, how will the motor carrier 

be notified? 

Autonomous vehicles will also have an impact on the roadside enforcement program. How will an inspector stop an autonomous vehicle for inspection? Will these 

vehicles be able to recognize and yield to emergency vehicle signals? Further, currently, the driver plays an integral role in the inspection process, working with the 

inspector to verify that critical vehicle mechanical components and systems are 

functioning properly. How will this change once inspectors begin encountering driver-less vehicles? 

These are just a few of the many questions that will need to be answered before 

autonomous vehicles can be allowed to enter the driving population. I want to stress 

that the purpose of these questions is not to slow innovation or create roadblocks 

to the technology. The enforcement community recognizes the safety benefits and 

welcome any change that improves roadway safety. However, we must ensure that 

inspectors and industry understand the role this technology will play and how it will 

impact commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs. We strongly encourage you 

to consider all facets of the issue, including what to do once the vehicles are on the 

roads. Doing so will help avoid uncertainty for the motor carrier industry and the 

enforcement community. 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this timely discussion on the future 

of automated commercial motor vehicles. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Colonel Hernandez. 

Mr. Clarke. 

11 

STATEMENT OF TROY CLARKE, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAVISTAR, INC. 

Mr. CLARKE. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, 

and members of the Committee. I am honored to be here this morning to discuss an important topic in our industry, autonomous technology applications in commercial trucks. 

I am Troy Clarke, and I currently serve as the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Navistar, Incorporated, the 

manufacturer of International trucks, IC school buses, diesel engines, and military vehicles. Navistar is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois, just outside of Chicago, and has over 12,000 employees 

worldwide. 

If I may, I would first like to provide a quick overview of our industry. There are four major commercial truck manufacturers in 

our country today. Ours is a small, highly competitive industry 

which expects to produce around 325,000 vehicles this year—a 

small fraction compared to the passenger car and light-truck market. 

Our customers range from large fleets, like J.B. Hunt and 

Penske with thousands of vehicles, to independent drivers operating only one truck. We build trucks and buses via mass customization, each one tailored to meet the specific needs of a particular 

customer. Reliability and upfront costs all impact purchase decisions. And a new truck ranges in price from $60,000 to $150,000. 

In other words, they represent major capital investments. And they 

only generate revenue for our customers when they’re up and running. 

Given all this, our customers invest significantly in the latest 

safety technology to protect their valuable capital asset as well as 

their most important human capital, the driver. This explains why 

market penetration rates for technologies like electronic stability 

control, radar-following cruise control, cameras for object detection, 

lane departure warning systems, and collision mitigation systems 

have been increasing every year. We call these advanced driver-assistance systems, or ADAS, and they offer quantum leaps of safety, 

productivity, and environmental benefits. Many of them also serve 

as the building blocks to greater automation. 

Navistar sees autonomous technology as an extension of the safety technology already in place, and we believe that these greater 

levels of self-driving technology will help reduce human error, 

which accounts for approximately 94 percent of all motor vehicle 

accidents. 

Before we arrive at the future, however, our customers tell me 

that they have much more immediate needs. They already have 

driverless trucks, but that’s because they have trouble recruiting 

and retaining drivers. As truck makers, we don’t hire or train drivers; our customers do. But as we continue to develop the technologies that could lead to autonomous vehicles, we will make 

much of that available to provide today’s drivers with greater ease 

of use, comfort, safety, productivity, and efficiency, factors that I 

believe will attract more people to this important and noble profession. 

Personally, I believe drivers will become more like airline pilots, 

even more highly trained and skilled than they are today. They 

12 

will be employed to manage multiple vehicle assets for optimized 

safety and efficiency. For example, an autonomous vehicle may be 

deployed on a highway while the driver sitting in his or her seat 

is managing controls and monitoring several platooning trucks, ensuring the safe and secure operation of the trucks under their care. 

Autonomous technology is not being created in a vacuum. Our industry is developing vehicle-to-vehicle, or V2V, systems to allow 

cars and trucks to talk to one another. As Federal regulations are 

being drafted and implemented, we want to ensure that passenger 

and commercial vehicles are following similar safety and design 

standards for optimal compatibility on the highway. Otherwise, 

passenger cars equipped with V2V technology may not be able to 

communicate effectively with large commercial vehicles, and could 

create blind spots in the transportation network that could create 

inadvertent hazards. 

Ours is an industry of business-to-business transactions. Development and validation cycles are long, and penetration and adoption rates take more time than in the light-vehicle industry. When 

we test on the road, we have to match the conditions our customers 

face, so we test trucks in many different states and climates. 

Trucks cross multiple state lines daily and sometimes traverse the 

same state multiple times in one day. It’s important for our industry to participate in the creation of advanced driving technologies 

now. Providing clarity on the legislative and regulatory front will 

allow us, truck manufacturers, to design and validate systems that 

meet the future needs of our customers while minimally disrupting 

the industry. 

Advanced driving and autonomous technologies will come to our 

industry. Large-scale displacement of drivers is not likely to happen, especially in the short and medium term. We believe these 

technologies will improve safety, improve productivity, and lower 

cost, as well as lead to more efficient use of the existing infrastructure. 

In the commercial vehicle industry, we have proven that regulations and technology can work together to advance the interests of 

all stakeholders. The time for these discussions is now. And I applaud the Committee on holding this hearing so that we can begin 

the dialogue on this issue. I welcome any questions at the right 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TROY CLARKE, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAVISTAR, INC. 

Good morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the 

Committee. I am honored to be here this morning to discuss an important topic in 

our industry . . . autonomous technology applications in commercial trucks. 

I am Troy Clarke, and I currently serve as the Chairman, President and Chief 

Executive Officer at Navistar, Inc., the manufacturer of International trucks, IC 

school buses, diesel engines and military vehicles. Navistar is headquartered in 

Lisle, Illinois just outside of Chicago and has over 12,000 employees worldwide. 

I would like to first provide a quick overview of our industry. 

There are four major commercial truck manufacturers in the country today. Ours 

is a small, highly competitive industry which expects to produce around 325,000 vehicles this year—a small fraction compared to the passenger car and light truck 

market. 

Our customers range from large fleets like JB Hunt and Penske with thousands 

of vehicles to independent drivers operating one truck. We build our trucks and 

13 

buses via mass customization . . . each one tailored to meet the specific needs of 

a particular customer. Reliability, upfront costs and the vehicles’ residual value all 

impact purchasing decisions. A new truck ranges in price from $60,000 to $150,000 

. . . in other words, they represent major capital investments. And they only generate revenue for our customers when they are up and running. Given all of this, 

our customers invest significantly in the latest safety technology to protect this valuable capital asset as well as their most important human capital—the driver. 

This explains why market penetration rates for technologies like electronic stability control, radar and cameras for object detection, lane departure warning systems, and collision mitigation systems have been increasing every year. We call 

these advance driver assistance systems or ADAS, and they offer quantum leaps of 

safety, productivity and environmental benefits. Many of them also serve as the 

building blocks to greater automation. An example of early automation in our industry is adaptive cruise control. 

Navistar sees autonomous technology as an extension of the safety technology already in place and we believe that these greater levels of self-driving technology will 

help reduce human error, which accounts for approximately 94 percent of all motor 

vehicle accidents. 

Before we arrive at that future, however, our customers tell me that they have 

much more immediate needs—they already have driverless trucks, but that’s because they have trouble recruiting and retaining drivers. 

As truck makers, we don’t hire or train drivers. Our customers do. But as we continue to develop technologies that could lead to completely autonomous vehicles, we 

will make many of them available to provide today’s drivers with greater ease of 

use, comfort, safety, productivity and efficiency—factors that, I believe, will attract 

more people to this important and noble profession. 

Personally, I believe drivers will become more like airline pilots—even more highly trained and skilled than they are today. They will be employed to manage multiple vehicle assets, for optimized safety and efficiency. For example, an autonomous 

vehicle may be deployed on a straight highway with mixed vehicles, while the driver 

sitting in his or her seat is managing the controls and monitoring several platooning 

trucks, and ensuring the safe and secure operation of the trucks under their care. 

Autonomous technology is not being created in a vacuum. Our industry is developing Vehicle to Vehicle (V to V) systems to allow cars and trucks to ‘‘talk’’ to one 

another. As Federal regulations are being drafted and implemented, we want to ensure that passenger and commercial vehicles are following similar safety and design 

standards for optimal compatibility. Otherwise, passenger cars equipped with V to 

V may not be able to communicate with large commercial vehicles which will create 

enormous blind spots in the transportation network and potentially create inadvertent hazards. 

Ours is an industry of business to business transactions. Development and validation cycles are long, and penetration and adoption rates take more time than in the 

light vehicle industry. When we test on the road we have to match the conditions 

our customers face so we test trucks in many different states and climates. Trucks 

cross multiple state lines daily and sometimes traverse the same state multiple 

times in one day. It’s important for industry to participate in the creation of advanced driving technologies now. Providing clarity on the legislative and regulatory 

front will allow us, truck manufacturers, to design and validate systems that meet 

the future needs of our customers while minimally disrupting the industry. 

Advanced driving and autonomous technologies will come to our industry. Large 

scale displacement of drivers is not likely to happen, especially in the short and medium term. We believe these technologies will improve safety, improve productivity 

and lower cost, as well as lead to more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The 

commercial vehicle industry has proven that regulations and technology have 

worked together to advance the interests of all stakeholders. 

The time for these discussions is now and I applaud the Committee on holding 

this hearing so that we can begin the dialogue on this issue. I welcome any questions that you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. 

Ms. Hersman, welcome back to this Committee. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH A.P. HERSMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 

Ms. HERSMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Peters, and members of the Committee. As President 

14 

and CEO of the National Safety Council, I strive every day to realize our mission of eliminating preventable deaths, and we believe 

that all vehicle crash fatalities are preventable. Yet today, over 100 

people die on our roadways every day in our vehicles and in crashes involving our vehicles—all vehicles. We can help reduce these 

statistics with technology. 

In 2004, I had the privilege to serve as a Member and then 

Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. During my 

10 years there, I saw too many commercial motor vehicle crashes 

that could have been prevented, and they could have been prevented by advanced technology. 

The NTSB first called on putting advanced technology in commercial vehicles back in 1995, and it is an issue that is on their 

Most Wanted List today. Today, we’ve certainly gone beyond the 

Level 2 technology that they had hoped for and envisioned back in 

1995, and are talking about fully automated vehicles. 

I know that you all have read all of our testimony. There are a 

lot of facts and figures in my long written testimony, so I would 

like to actually take my time with you this morning to share a personal story. 

Last year, I came home from a trip, and my 10-year-old son met 

me at the door and he said, ‘‘Mommy, did you see your car?’’ That’s 

not a good thing when you walk in the door from a trip. And I said, 

‘‘What happened to my car?’’ And he took me out in the garage and 

he showed me. And this picture up here on the screen is my car. 

And, yes, it’s ironic, the license plate says ‘‘BESAFER’’ on it. 

My husband was coming home to our house on a lower speed 

roadway, and he was rear-ended by another vehicle as he slowed 

to allow an emergency vehicle to turn into the firehouse in front 

of him. And being a former investigator, my first questions to my 

husband were, ‘‘What happened? What was going on? What was 

the situation? What were the circumstances? What was the driver 

doing?’’ And unfortunately, he didn’t have a lot of good answers for 

me. He told me the gentleman was a little bit older and that there 

was a dog in the car. 

For the next couple of days, I spent, you know, kind of my time 

thinking, ‘‘What happened? How did this happen? Could it have 

been prevented? Did it involve distraction? Did it involve fatigue? 

Could it have been prevented?’’ 

About 3 weeks later, I came home, and my husband was in a 

pretty somber mood, and he told me he had received a call from 

the insurance adjuster who was managing our claim. And the insurance adjuster had just called the gentleman who was the driver 

of the Jeep Liberty who had hit our car. Mr. Norton had called his 

house, and his son answered the phone, and when he asked to 

speak to Mr. Norton, his son said that he had been killed in a 

crash. And the insurance adjuster said, ‘‘I thought there were no 

injuries in the crash.’’ And he said, ‘‘My dad was killed on Friday.’’ 

And because we knew the information about the driver, we went 

to Google, like many of us do when we’re trying to find something 

out, and we found that Mr. Norton had been in an intersection 

crash in his Jeep Liberty just shortly before. And this picture up 

on the screen is the picture that was in the newspaper. 

15 

And again the same questions started to run through my head, 

‘‘What happened? How did this happen? Who was at fault? Could 

this have been prevented? Did it have something to do with what 

had happened 3 weeks before?’’ 

And as a safety professional who has spent decades working on 

how to prevent transportation events and incidents, I realized that 

while it’s important for us to understand why something happened, 

what’s most important is to understand how we can prevent these 

things from occurring again. And we have the ability to prevent 

these fatalities that occur on our roads every day. 

A hundred people every day. Mr. Norton was a father, he was a 

member of a community, probably a church community. He had an 

extended network. That happens 100 times every day. And we can 

do more, we can do better, we can address this issue, and we can 

save lives. If we are going to get to zero, we have to do it by looking 

at all of the fatalities and all of the things that we can do to prevent them. This conversation here today begins that discussion. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hersman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH A.P. HERSMAN, PRESIDENT

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today on proposed legislation to create a framework 

to save lives on our roadways. The National Safety Council (NSC) believes that in 

order for our nation to receive the biggest benefit from this technology, all motor 

vehicles—both personal and commercial—must be included in this legislative proposal. 

The National Safety Council is a 100-year-old nonprofit committed to eliminating 

preventable deaths in our lifetime by focusing on reducing fatalities and injuries in 

workplaces, on the road and in homes and communities. Our more than 13,500 

member companies represent employees at more than 50,000 U.S. worksites. Not 

only do we work with companies but also with organized labor, who share our dedication to keeping workers safe on and off the job. With almost 40 percent of workplace fatalities involving motor vehicles, accelerating the availability and adoption 

of crash reduction and mitigation technology is crucial to that vision. 

In 2015, there were 4,067 fatalities in large truck crashes and 667 were occupants 

of large trucks. Fatalities on our roadways are trending in the wrong direction and 

technology can help reverse the death toll. However, to achieve maximum benefit 

and save the most lives, we must do so holistically by applying technological advances to all vehicles. After all, roads are built for both cars. 

NSC commends Commerce Committee leaders for offering a framework to increase transparency around the technology in advanced driver assistance systems 

(ADAS)-equipped vehicles and prioritizing safety in the process. As a nation, there 

are more vehicles on the road today traveling more miles, and yet the most dangerous factors in roadway travel continue to be human factors. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 94 percent of investigated 

crashes can be attributed to driver error. The top four reasons for crashes are 

caused by human behavior or choices: alcohol, speed, fatigue and distraction, giving 

ADAS systems and automated vehicles the potential to reduce preventable crashes 

and deaths in an unprecedented way. 

16 

1Decision errors include driving too fast for conditions, too fast for the curve, false assumption 

of others’ actions, illegal maneuver and misjudgment of gap or others’ speed. Performance errors 

include factors such as overcompensation and poor directional control. Non-performance error 

is most commonly sleeping. 2 National Safety Council Injury Facts 2017 3https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812350 

NSC1 estimates that 40,200 people lost their lives on our Nation’s roadways in 

2016, a 14 percent increase from where we were just two years ago. Over 100 people 

die each day in motor vehicle crashes, and another 4 million people are injured severely enough to consult a medical professional every year. Beyond the human toll, 

these deaths and injuries cost society over $385 billion, including productivity 

losses, medical expenses, motor vehicle property damages and employer costs.2

Each of these numbers represent a person who leaves behind loved ones. NSC believes advanced vehicle technology, up to and including fully automated vehicles, 

can provide many benefits to society, but the most important contribution will be 

the potential to greatly reduce the number of fatal crashes on our roadways. 

These trends are not improving. NSC data reveal that the 18,680 roadway fatalities during the first six months of 2017 are 1 percent lower than the same period 

in 2016, but still 8 percent higher than the same period two years ago. Our complacency is killing us. If we are to redirect this trend in a positive direction, we must 

adopt a sense of urgency coupled with large, near term gains to save lives on our 

roadways. 

So that we all know where we stand, in 2015: 

• 10,265 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, an increase of almost 300 from 2014,3


913DHERS1.eps 913DHERS2.eps
17 

4https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving 

5https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812374 

• 3,477 people were killed in distraction related crashes, an increase of almost 

300 from 2014,4 and 

• 9,874 people were killed while unrestrained, an increase of over 400 from 2014.5

The maps below tell the story of the national trends in roadway fatalities. 

These statistics are not isolated to passenger vehicles, and in the same way, policy 

options should not be limited to passenger vehicles. Commercial motor vehicles 

(CMVs) represent 4 percent of vehicles on the roadways but are involved in 11 percent of fatal crashes. That translates to over 4,000 people being killed in crashes 

with CMVs annually. The large mass, increased time and space required for braking 

and incompatibility in structures (front, rear and side design of the vehicles) tell 

part of the story of why these vehicles are involved in so many fatal crashes, but 

human factors, like speeding, fatigue and distraction also contribute. Rear-end collisions represent 10 percent of fatal commercial vehicle crashes—three times more fatalities than rear-end collisions involving passenger cars. By not deploying ADAS 


913DHERS3.eps 913DHERS4.eps
18 

6Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

7http://www.thecampbellinstitute.org/file/download.php?id=20130925358263a8956de938e7c0 

0a2bbbb8413d 8http://www.thecampbellinstitute.org/file/download.php?id=2015092336b107f72d10a379134a 

f9249d3457ab 

technologies such as forward collision warning or automatic emergency braking, 

thousands of preventable fatalities and injuries are occurring every year.6

Safety Evaluation Report and Data Recorders 

The proposed legislation is intended to set the framework to aid the inevitable 

transition to ADAS technologies and fully automated vehicles. Our roadways were 

not made for passenger and commercial vehicles to operate independently of each 

other, and both types of vehicles are being tested at this time. Therefore, the policies 

outlined in this legislation should apply to all vehicles. 

The current draft legislation establishes greater transparency around the development of ADAS and automated vehicles by mandating the safety evaluation report 

(SER) that outlines reporting requirements for manufacturers. The bill also includes 

the use of a data recording device, something which is already widely used in the 

automotive industry today and yields valuable data in crash reconstruction efforts. 

Electronic logging devices (ELDs) and electronic data recorders (EDRs) provide a 

window into the human-machine interface with advanced vehicles. The knowledge 

gained from these devices allows manufacturers to be nimbler and make adjustments in near real-time to improve safety based on what is actually occurring in 

operation, rather than making changes based on assumptions and estimations that 

must be accommodated in a later model year. To this end, Congress should facilitate 

data sharing as widely as possible by requiring that manufacturers provide accessible, standardized data to law enforcement, state highway safety offices, investigators, insurers, and/or other relevant stakeholders. Collecting and sharing de-identified data about near misses and other relevant problems would also help to aggregate vital performance information for the motor vehicle industry, allowing it to 

take proactive steps based on leading indicators rather than waiting for a crash or 

a series of crashes to occur. Leading indicators are ‘‘proactive, preventative and predictive measures that monitor and provide current information about the effective 

performance, activities and processes of a . . . system that drive the identification 

and eliminate or control of risks.’’7 The NSC Campbell Institute, a leader in environmental, health and safety, states that tracking leading indicators allows world-class 

safety organizations to make further improvements to their safety records.8

Acquiring an understanding of what happens when systems perform as intended, 

fail as expected, or fail in unexpected ways yields is valuable information for manufacturers—some of whom have common suppliers—and researchers and the safety 

community in analyzing the safety benefits and potential limitations of these technologies as they continue to mature. Further, in-service data, as well as near miss 

and post-crash information sharing, can help civil engineers and planners design 

better and safer roadways, as well as help safety and health professionals design 

better interventions to discourage risky driving or affect the behaviors of other roadway users. 


913DHERS5.eps
19 

9http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-marketplace/sales-data 

10www.mycardoeswhat.org 

De-identified data sharing has existed in the aviation industry for many years 

and proven highly successful. The Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 

(ASIAS) system allows for sharing of de-identified data across the industry, making 

it possible for manufacturers, operators, researchers, regulators and other stakeholders to identify trends and act on them. Similarly, analysis of de-identified data 

in the vehicle industry will provide windows into leading indicators, increasing the 

potential to save lives. 

While there are competing priorities regarding protecting personal privacy and 

proprietary systems or designs, NSC believes that safety should be the ultimate priority. Requiring the SER and data sharing will aid in improving safety. 

Education and Training 

Another encouraging component in the draft legislation is the creation of the consumer education workgroup focused on new safety technologies. With nearly 17.4 

million new passenger cars and trucks sold in 2015,9 understanding the technology 

on these vehicles is necessary, yet a University of Iowa survey found that 40 percent 

of respondents reported they had experienced a situation in which their vehicle 

acted in an unexpected way. When this occurs in a real-life driving situation, among 

multiple drivers and a variety of vehicles, it can lead to disastrous outcomes. 

The National Safety Council and our research partners at the University of Iowa 

are focused on educating consumers about in-vehicle safety technology through our 

MyCarDoesWhat campaign.10 This brand agnostic education campaign informs drivers about how safety technologies work, how to best interact with them, and how 

to identify situations when the technology may not perform optimally and should 

not be relied upon. Because of the need for continued human involvement in the 

operation of many of these features, the campaign tagline is, ‘‘You are your car’s 

best safety feature.’’ Too often, marketing and media reports using terms such as 

‘‘autopilot’’ and ‘‘autonomous’’ only confuse consumers about the capabilities of their 

vehicles and contribute to losses of situational awareness around the driving task. 

Drivers cannot effectively use these life-saving technologies if they do not understand both their functions and limitations, and these education efforts should be extended to the safe use of automated commercial vehicles. The AV policy proposes 

that this education be delivered in multiple ways, including computer based, handson and virtual reality training, and other innovative approaches. The 

MyCarDoesWhat education campaign follows that approach and has developed a 

virtual reality module. Further, we recommend ongoing evaluation to determine the 

effectiveness of the various messages, methods of delivery and media so they can 

be improved over time. NSC appreciates the recognition by the Senate that education is a necessity if we are to realize the life-saving effects of these vehicles. 

The AV START Act 

As previously mentioned, there are several good provisions in the draft bill that 

the National Safety Council would like to highlight. 

• Including whether a vehicle in a crash is equipped with some automation on 

post-crash investigation reports. NSC called this out in our report ‘‘Undercounted is Underinvested: How Incomplete Crash Reports Impact Efforts to Save 

Lives’’ earlier this year. This data can be vital to improve safety systems. 

• Improving research on the human machine interface to ensure drivers remain 

engaged in the driving task before full automation. In too many other modes 

of transportation, users have become confused about what technology is ‘‘saying’’ to them and results have been fatal. Standardizing these alerts (visual, 

aural, haptic) could decrease this confusion. 

I offer some additional provisions for your consideration to include in the legislation. 

• Reporting of certain types of crashes, such as fatal and serious injury crashes, 

to a Department of Transportation database can help ensure correct information 

is disseminated about these events. We have already seen the overwhelming 

media attention on automated vehicle crashes. By creating a database, one 

place would exist for locating common and accurate information. 

• Testing on public roads should be reported to the states in which tests occur. 

Adding this level of transparency can help states be more involved, especially 

if they must send resources to respond to a testing event. 

20 

• Encouraging the designation of a common nomenclature and performance 

standard for each safety feature or system so drivers can better understand and 

compare performance. 

• Tying ADAS and automation components to vehicle identification numbers 

(VIN) so that more complete crash reporting and analysis can be completed. 

• Requiring rulemaking to mandate safety technology with proven results to require it on all vehicles. 

Technology in Transportation 

Improvements in technology and safety in transportation have historically gone 

hand-in-hand. During my decade at the National Transportation Safety Board, the 

NTSB called for many safety improvements that would reduce or mitigate fatal 

transportation incidents, some of which were at least partially attributable to predictable and preventable human behavior. Technology like auto-pilot features in 

aviation control airspeed and heading, leaving human operators free to monitor 

larger systems and issues to ensure safe flight. Similarly, positive train control is 

still being implemented on passenger and freight railroads but will certainly prevent 

numerous collisions. Electronic charts standardize routes and transponders in the 

maritime industry projecting the routes other vessels will travel. This Committee 

oversees all of these industries and these very technologies are ones you have debated and mandated. You know that each advancement in technology has impacts, 

some of which are known while others may result in unintended outcomes. 

At this point in the deployment of vehicle safety technology, human drivers are 

still ultimately responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle and often need to 

intervene in certain conditions. We can expect this intervention will continue to be 

necessary as technologies mature. However, we also fully understand that this may 

not always be the case. At some point drivers, including those who may be impaired, 

may do more harm than good. 

Currently, vehicle manufacturers are making different choices about how to develop fully automated vehicles. Some manufacturers believe that human drivers will 

always be required behind the wheel and that highly or fully automated features 

will serve to assist the human or take over when the driver fails to take corrective 

action. Others see the role of the traditional driver disappearing entirely, with vehicles providing safe transportation and mobility through artificial intelligence—all by 

themselves. NSC believes that both should be seen as viable courses of action and 

thus addressed in any new policies. 

There is real debate today as to whether fully self-driving vehicles will actually 

achieve widespread acceptance in the coming decades. Some people believe that 

American drivers, while willing to embrace systems that provide them assistance, 

will always want the option of hands-on driving. Other people believe that it may 

actually be safer for humans to simply be passengers in fully automated vehicles. 

Regardless of the level of autonomy, we know that active safety system integration into the U.S. fleet will be more robust in years to come, and as these features 

continue to penetrate the driving world, we can expect to see changes in the very 

definition of the word ‘‘driver.’’ In the last few years, NHTSA offered that there may 

be a day when ‘‘driver’’ may refer to an automated system rather than a human 

being. Today, some states are contemplating this same idea, especially those who 

run the licensing systems and law enforcement charged with enforcing state regulations. These state leaders, along with other Federal and state entities, should cooperate and collaborate, moving beyond their traditional roles to respond to the new 

questions rather than addressing them on a piecemeal basis. 

Finally, one of the biggest challenges in moving from level 1 to level 4/5 vehicles 

is successfully identifying the challenges and improvements needed for the humanmachine interface to be successful. In other industries, such as aviation, there have 

been many lessons learned regarding mode confusion and overreliance on automation. We must recognize that the most dangerous environment will exist when both 

the human and machine are involved in the safe operation of a vehicle. The greatest 

risks are not when one or the other has sole responsibility for the vehicle, but when 

the control is shared. A ‘‘driver’’ whose role is primarily to serve as a safety monitor, 

always on-guard in case of a system malfunction or other emergency, will be susceptible to boredom, fatigue, and/or distraction, all of which may contribute to a more 

dangerous situation. 

In order to save lives on our roadways—the most dangerous way to travel in this 

country—all options should be at the disposal of policy makers. If necessary, 

NHTSA must use its authority to address defects quickly and effectively, sharing 

as much information with the public as possible. 

21 

11https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2017-adas-rt.aspx 12https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx 13https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCeGam2RNfE 14https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Pages/SIR1501.aspx 15https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCeGam2RNfE 16 Ibid. 17https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR1501.pdf 

NTSB–NSC Roundtable on Safety Technologies in Large Trucks 

On July 24, NSC and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) co-hosted 

a roundtable discussion with nearly two-dozen fleet managers, vehicle manufacturers, government officials, researchers, software experts, safety advocates and more. 

The panel discussed strategies to increase adoption of ADAS in commercial motor 

vehicles.11 NTSB has recommended advanced technology on CMVs since 1995 because of the life-saving potential of this technology, and this issue is currently on 

its Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements.12

The NTSB–NSC roundtable discussion provided three key takeaways.13 First, 

technologies exist today that can reduce both the frequency and severity of crashes 

involving large trucks, saving lives and preventing injuries. Some of the lifesaving 

technologies available for large trucks include automatic emergency braking, forward collision warning, lane departure warning and blind spot monitoring. These 

technologies assist—but do not replace—the driver. Roundtable participants who 

had investigated fatal crashes said many of those tragedies could have been mitigated or prevented entirely by collision avoidance technologies. However, the penetration rate of these technologies in large trucks is less than 10 percent.14

A second takeaway from the discussion centered on the importance of proper 

training for drivers. Drivers must use new technologies appropriately, and the 

threat of overreliance on new technologies is legitimate and must be addressed in 

training sessions. For example, a truck equipped with electronic stability control 

does not give a driver freedom to go faster around curves. Likewise, a truck that 

features collision avoidance technologies does not clear the way for a driver to be 

drowsy or distracted behind the wheel. Drivers must remain alert and attentive at 

all times even with new ADAS features in place. 

The third and final takeaway was that manufacturers, carriers and others who 

work in the trucking industry can take the lead in this life-saving mission. There 

is power in partnerships. Regulations could speed the adoption of ADAS in large 

trucks, but nothing is preventing fleets from equipping new vehicles and retrofitting 

old vehicles with some of these technologies. There is a cost component to this investment, but one trucking company at the roundtable reported a significant return 

on investment.15 After installing collision avoidance technologies, the company recorded a 70 percent reduction in frequency and a 95 percent reduction in severity 

of crashes. Not only did this keep both its employees and the public safer, but also 

cut down drastically on the legal, health care, insurance and operational costs associated with crashes. Another participant noted that costs associated with a single 

crash can destroy a small fleet or an owner-operator.16

NTSB Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Investigations 

As mentioned earlier, NTSB first recommended advanced technology in vehicles 

over 20 years ago in 1995, calling on U.S. Department of Transportation to test collision warning systems in commercial fleets.17 NTSB specifically singled out commercial operations in this initial recommendation, and since that time, NTSB has 

expanded its recommendation to include passenger vehicles. 

While at NTSB, I was the unfortunate witness to many crashes that could have 

been prevented by advanced technology that has been available for years. The 

crashes cited below represent just a few involving commercial vehicles. 

22 

Bronx, New York: 15 dead and 18 injured. This crash could have been prevented 

or mitigated by lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control (ACC), and a speed 

limiter. The driver was operating at 14 mph over speed limit and run off the road 

due to fatigue. 

Osseo, Wisconsin: 4 dead and 36 injured. This crash could have been prevented 

or mitigated by AEB, ACC and lane departure warning (LDW). This was a high 

school band returning from a band competition. 


913DHERS6.eps 913DHERS7.eps
23 

Munfordville, Kentucky: 11 dead and 2 injured. This crash could have been prevented or mitigated by AEB and LDW. The truck crashed into a church van on the 

way to a wedding, and the two surviving passengers were children restrained in car 

seats pictured below. 

Miami, Oklahoma: 10 dead and 6 injured. This crash could have been prevented 

or mitigated by AEB. The truck did not react to stopped vehicles ahead and struck 

the end of a passenger vehicle, resulting in a multiple vehicle collision. 


913DHERS8.eps 913DHERS9.eps
24 

Grey Summit, Missouri: 2 dead and 38 injured. This crash could have been prevented or mitigated by AEB. 

If this bill is moving forward, it should do so including all motor vehicles. 

Road to Zero 

On October 5, 2016, NSC, NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced the Road 

to Zero (RTZ) Coalition. RTZ is an initiative focused on identifying new ways to look 

at the persistent problem of roadway fatalities. Today, nearly one year later, there 

are over 350 unique organizations that have joined the coalition that I am honored 

to lead with a number of Steering Group members (listed below). Our shared vision 

of a future with no roadway fatalities cannot be realized unless we redouble efforts 

on existing solutions and accelerate implementation of new measures like ADAS 

and automated vehicles. 

In early 2018, the Road to Zero coalition will produce a vision for reaching zero 

fatalities on our roadways by 2050. I look forward to sharing this document with 

you, as I know it will be an important addition to the discussion of roadway safety 

policy development. 

NSC is joined on the Steering Group for the Road to Zero Coalition by the following organizations: AAA, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Association of Global Automakers, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety (IIHS), Intelligent Car Coalition, International Association of 

Chiefs of Police (IACP), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials (NASEMSO), National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), National Association of County Engineers (NACE), and the Vision Zero Network. 

Conclusion 

We cannot continue to do things the same way and expect different results. When 

it comes to saving lives on our roadways, this means implementing a legislative 

framework for advancing safety technology on ALL motor vehicles. By advancing 

safety technology in trucks and buses, as well as passenger cars, the bill before you 

today represents a step in that direction to move us closer to a goal of zero fatalities 

on the roadways. 

The National Safety Council is committed to working with you to advance safety, 

up to and including automated vehicles. Doing this well is essential. Lives depend 

on it. 


913DHERS10.eps
25 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Hersman. 

Mr. Spear. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (ATA) 

Mr. SPEAR. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, and 

members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I 

think Debbie’s testimony really captures the importance of this 

issue well, and she is a great contribution to the safety story. 

The American Trucking Associations’ federation has more than 

30,000 member companies spanning all parts of the trucking industry, from every size, type, and class of motor carrier operation, to 

truck makers, tech companies, as well as insurers. That diverse 

membership is important for discussions like this one, where the 

trucking industry’s key role in our economy meets rapidly developing technology. There are more than 7 million people employed 

in the trucking industry and in trucking-related jobs in the U.S., 

including 3.5 million truck drivers. One in 16 jobs in the U.S. are 

trucking related where truck-driving jobs are the top job in 29 

states. 

Truck drivers, who ATA is celebrating this week as part of National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, move more than 70 percent 

of our Nation’s freight tonnage. They help deliver products to communities in every corner of the country every day—stores, factories, 

schools, hospitals—and as you’re seeing today, they’re on the front 

lines of disaster response delivering supplies to help the people of 

Texas and Florida live and rebuild after two historic storms. 

Those same drivers, we believe, will be a part of our industry for 

the long haul. While some people use the terms ‘‘autonomous’’ and 

‘‘driverless’’ interchangeably, ATA believes the world of automated 

vehicles will still have an important role for the drivers. Just as pilots play a key role in our airline industry, truck drivers will do 

the same on the ground by leveraging the benefits of automated 

technology while navigating the cityscapes and handling the customer pickups and deliveries. The trucking industry spends over $9 

billion annually on safety, including technology enhancements, to 

help ensure that drivers and passengers of all vehicles make it 

safely to their destination. 

The technology we’re discussing today is the next step in the evolution of the types of safety technology the trucking industry is already investing in. This technology is becoming more robust in both 

commercial and passenger vehicles. To fully maximize the safety of 

other benefits of automated driving technology, it makes sense to 

provide protections and incentives for innovation in commercial vehicles, not just passenger vehicles. This includes Federal preemption to ensure that State and Federal regulations do not impede 

interstate commerce. It also includes the ability to receive exemptions from existing Federal regulations so that new technology can 

be developed and tested both in commercial and non-commercial 

vehicles. 

We are at a critical moment in the development of autonomous 

technology. There are many questions to be answered, including 

those about cybersecurity, about the impact on trucking operations, 

26 

and how vehicles will interact with one another, as well as infrastructure. What is clear is that those questions should be answered 

for commercial and passenger vehicles at the same time. As you 

draft legislation intended to address many of these questions, I’d 

respectfully ask that the Committee consider the following points. 

First, ensure that the Federal Government has the sole authority 

to regulate automated vehicle technology. As an industry that routinely crosses state lines, the rules of the road must be the same 

across the country in order to maintain a free flow of goods. Our 

industry cannot be subject to a patchwork of conflicting state rules. 

We service the entire country, and the trucking industry needs uniform rules to effectively do that. 

Second, we believe Federal agencies and state governments must 

commit to supporting innovation for both commercial and passenger vehicles, using existing regulatory exemptions to allow manufacturers and technology companies to test and develop new systems. 

Third, Federal agencies must coordinate their own missions with 

respect to automated vehicles. We believe the benefits of automated 

vehicles would be greatly enhanced, for instance, by vehicle 

connectivity, using the 5.9 GHz safety spectrum. The use of this 

communications channel for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure systems will fully unlock the potential of automated vehicles to improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and decrease emissions. We encourage the Federal Communications Commission to 

preserve all seven channels of 5.9 GHz spectrum for safety and to 

take no action that could harm the initiatives the Department of 

Transportation is pursuing with this spectrum. 

Finally, we urge the Federal Government to consider the existing 

slate of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and how they 

might be impacted by increased automation as well as how regulations can accommodate this new technology and improve safety, 

productivity, and the environment. This should include the impact 

of automated vehicle use on CSA scores, liability, and insurance 

regulations, speed limiters, and hours-of-service rules. This isn’t to 

say these regulations should be changed. The DOT should first determine how a more automated environment will impact the industry it regulates in order to minimize disruption and confusion as 

this technology becomes more robust and widely available. 

This concludes my testimony. Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, 

members of the Committee, I thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify on this important subject, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (ATA) 

Introduction 

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in today’s hearing on Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and Our Nation’s Highways. My name is 

Chris Spear, and I am the President and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA). Founded in 1933, ATA is the Nation’s preeminent organization representing the interests of the U.S. trucking industry. Directly and through its affiliated organizations, ATA encompasses more than 30,000 companies and every type 

and class of motor carrier operation. 

27 

1 Highway Statistics 2015, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and American Trucking Associations, Trucking Trends 2017 (August 2017) 2 American Trucking Associations, American Trucking Trends 2017 (August 2017) 

3 ATA staff, developed the 80 percent figure by using the Rand McNally Commercial & Marketing Guide (2001) numbers for rail service to communities and calculating the inverse, ultimately deriving the number of communities serviced by truck. 4 American Trucking Associations, Trucking Trends 2017 (August 2017) 

5Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2015, Table VM–1, accessed online at 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/pdf/vm1.pdf. 6Large Truck Crash Causation Study, Federal Highway Administration, July 2007 

7Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the National Motor 

Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. (Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 

115). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 8 American Trucking Associations, (2016, June 26). Trucking Industry Spends $9.5 Billion In 

Safety Annually. Retrieved from: http://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/News%20and%20Infor 

mation/Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statistics/06%2028%2016%20-%20Trucking%20Industry 

%20Invests%20$9%205%20Billion%20in%20Safety%20Annually.pdf 9 Relative Contribution/Fault in Car-Truck Crashes, February 2013, http://www.trucking.org/ 10 Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2017 Update, American Transportation Research Institute, Arlington, VA, May 2017 

The trucking industry is an integral component of our Nation’s economy, and a 

significant contributor to the highway trust fund. Despite being less than 13 per 

cent of the vehicles on the road, trucking pays nearly half of the money that goes 

into the highway trust fund 1 each year. That’s more than $18 billion that goes toward the construction, operation and maintenance of the roads that all vehicles 

share. Trucking transports more than 70 percent of our Nation’s freight tonnage and 

employs 7.4 million workers in trucking-related jobs across many sectors of the 

economy, including over 3.5 million commercial drivers 2. These drivers are on the 

road every single day moving the economy. Approximately 80 percent of all U.S. 

communities depend solely on trucks to deliver and supply their essential commodities.3

Today’s hearing coincides with National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, when 

America takes the time to honor all professional truck drivers for their hard work 

and commitment in tackling one of our economy’s most demanding and important 

jobs. These 3.5 million professional men and women not only deliver our goods safely, securely and on time, they also keep our highways safe and serve as role models 

in their communities. During this hurricane season, we should also recognize these 

drivers for overcoming the challenges of roadways and communities devastated by 

natural disasters to bring in critical goods to aid in the recovery efforts. We know 

there are concerns about the elimination of drivers or a change in their role from 

automation. We continue to believe that the automated technologies being developed 

today will assist drivers, improving safety and productivity, and that the job of 

truck driver will be with us for the foreseeable future. However, we do not dismiss 

the importance of considering the potential impacts on the workforce and the need 

to develop programs that will help prepare workers with the skills needed for the 

jobs of the future. 

The trucking industry has a substantial stake in the success of safe automated 

and connected vehicle technology. The roads are the workplace of the truck driver, 

and safety is of paramount importance. There were 33.8 million commercial trucks 

of all classes (including 3.63 million Class 8 trucks) registered in the U.S. in 2015 4. That same year, medium and heavy duty trucks accounted for 7.9 percent of the 

vehicle miles traveled 5. Safety gains achievable by removing human error, which is 

a factor in 87 percent of large truck crashes 6 and 94 percent of all vehicle crashes 7, and the additional economic and societal benefits, are very enticing to an industry 

that already spends over $9 billion annually on safety, including technology enhancements, to help ensure that drivers and passengers of all vehicles make it safely to their destination.8 Additionally, the preponderance of research studies find 

that car drivers are principally at fault in approximately three-quarters (70–75 percent) of fatal car-truck crashes 9. Connectivity and automated technology can work 

together to reduce or eliminate these crashes. With these technologies, we can not 

only improve safety, but lower fuel burn and emissions, and help reduce traffic congestion, which costs the trucking industry $63.4 billion a year—the time lost to traffic is equivalent to having 362,000 drivers sitting idle for an entire year.10

Automated driving technology is the next step in the evolution of the safety technology currently available, and it is critical that Federal policies developed for this 

new technology include all vehicles that operate on our nations roadways. While 

self-driving vehicle demonstrations are exciting to watch, automated technology 

comes in many levels that will assist the driver and in some cases, handle the driving task. Some may predict the elimination of all driving jobs, including both drivers 

28 

11Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the National Motor 

Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. (Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 

115). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 12 American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis (October 2015) 

of passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles, but that future, if it exists at all, is 

too far into the future to see. Realistically, what we are talking about now is fostering the development of all levels of automated technology, so that those levels 

of technology which provide improved safety and productivity can be tested, proven, 

and deployed to benefit all road users. We need to think about how this innovation 

can solve problems like crashes, congestion, and emissions, and let that guide policy 

and drive outcomes. In short, this innovation and its benefits, centers on solutions 

in which their remains a role for drivers, rather than a driverless approach. 

As you well know, passenger cars and commercial vehicles operate on the same 

roads, making it critically important that both benefit from innovation in safety 

technology. While there are differences between passenger and commercial vehicles, 

it makes sense to provide protections and incentives for innovation in commercial 

vehicles as well as passenger vehicles—things like Federal preemption to ensure 

that state and Federal regulations do not conflict or impede interstate commerce, 

and the ability to receive exemptions from existing Federal regulations so that new 

technology can be developed and tested—these should apply to both commercial and 

non-commercial vehicles. 

Automated Technology in Trucking 

Automated vehicle technologies have the potential to dramatically impact nearly 

all aspects of the trucking industry. These technologies can bring benefits in the 

areas of safety, environment, productivity, efficiency, and driver health and 

wellness. Although some people use the terms ‘‘autonomous’’ and ‘‘driverless’’ interchangeably, ATA believes that the driver will retain an important role in trucking, 

even with automated trucks. In addition to monitoring the automated driving systems and manually driving in the cityscape and at loading docks, drivers will retain 

their current responsibilities for securing the cargo, particularly hazardous cargo, as 

well as for customer interaction with the shipper and receiver. 

In the trucking industry, you have a business-to-business relationship between 

the fleets purchasing the vehicles and the companies offering the technology. How 

individual carriers choose to incorporate automated technologies in their fleets will 

likely not be a ‘‘one size fits all’’ application, but rather will depend on each carrier’s 

operations and anticipated return on investment for the technology. Trucking companies will want to see convincing data before they invest in changing their operations to incorporate the new technology. Trucking is also a highly regulated industry. Regulations from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as well as the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others affect both the vehicle 

technology and the driver’s responsibilities, which will also have an impact on a 

company’s decision on whether and how to deploy automated technology. 

The bottom line is that the trucking industry is vitally interested in automated 

vehicle technologies and the safety and efficiency promise they hold. The safety 

gains achievable by removing human error, a factor in 94 percent of all vehicle 

crashes,11 could be transformative in reducing fatalities and injuries on our roadways, as well as in preventing even minor crashes, which would reduce traffic congestion and pollution, providing additional economic and societal benefits. 

Automated Driving Technology and Jobs 

The development of automated technology for vehicles does not mean that all vehicles will become ‘‘driverless vehicles’’ and that every kind of driving job will be 

eliminated. The reality is much more complex. While there may be applications 

where an automated system can take over the driving task, this is unlikely to replace commercial vehicle drivers altogether, just as in the airline industry pilots are 

still in the cockpit and responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle. As with 

any technology that increases productivity, there is a likelihood that there will be 

a decrease in the number of people needed to do the same amount of work. Right 

now, we are facing a shortage of drivers, particularly for long-distance drivers, 

around 50,000. If these trends continue, the shortage could hit over 150,000 in a 

decade. And as the shortage becomes more acute, it will begin to affect the ability 

of goods to be delivered on time, which is becoming more important in today’s ondemand economy. Projections are that we’ll need to hire about 890,000 truck drivers 

over the next 10 years.12 The American Transportation Research Institute, the notVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
29 

13 Identifying Autonomous Vehicle Technology Impacts on the Trucking Industry, American 

Transportation Research Institute, Arlington, VA, November 2016. 14 U.S. Freight Transportation Forecast to . . . 2028, produced by IHS Global Insight, Inc. for 

American Trucking Associations. 

for-profit research arm of the trucking industry, recently released a report on how 

autonomous technologies will impact the trucking industry. That assessment found 

that highly automated trucks will likely draw new, younger drivers into the trucking industry by better meeting the job expectations of millennial workers.13 Making 

our drivers more productive may also be an important element in addressing this 

shortage and avoiding shipping delays. Additionally, as we have seen with other 

new technologies, there are new jobs created as well, which in the case of automated 

trucks could include new categories of maintenance technicians and new jobs that 

will develop along with business models that take advantage of the new capabilities 

this technology brings. 

As the automated technology is still developing, it is difficult to make any projections on how driving jobs will ultimately be affected without gathering more data. 

As I pointed out earlier, there is a business-to-business relationship between the 

fleets purchasing the vehicles and the companies offering the technology in the 

trucking industry. Fleet owners will want information on what the new technology 

can do and what it will cost before they can make decisions on how it would impact 

their operations. For example, will it operate only on open highway or only in traffic 

jams? Will it operate under all weather conditions? Can the technology operate 

when it gets off the main roads and navigate to a customer’s delivery location, 

which may involve driving on private roads? Will the system need frequent calibration or have other special maintenance requirements? With this type of information, 

companies can then determine how the role of the driver would change. This information may help inform future regulatory policy as well. However, in order to answer these and other questions, there will need to be more data gathered in realworld testing and demonstration projects, which could be stalled if companies have 

to work through a maze of disparate state regulations or are unable to put sufficient 

vehicles on the road to collect the necessary data. 

While no one can predict the distant future—I still haven’t seen the Jetson’s flying car on the road or in the air yet—I can tell you this: Trucking companies rely 

on good, safe drivers. As an industry, we are working hard to recruit new drivers 

and retain the excellent drivers we have now. Automated technology has the promise of keeping these drivers safer on the roads, and making them more productive. 

As automated technology changes the role of the driver, trucking companies will 

work to retrain drivers as needed to operate with the new technology. We need to 

embrace this innovation and shape policies that are sensible for all vehicles that 

share the road, while reflecting the unique aspects of the trucking industry’s role 

in our economy that allows businesses and private citizens to confidently ship goods 

across state lines and throughout America. Right now, trucks move more than 10 

billion tons of freight—nearly 71 percent of all U.S. domestic freight tonnage—and 

those figures are only expected to grow as our economy and population also grow.14

We will continue to need human beings in the cabs of our trucks for some time. In 

addition to the anticipated safety benefits, what these technologies may do is make 

those drivers more efficient, make driving a more attractive career choice, and attract new people to our industry. 

Cybersecurity 

As with passenger vehicles, cybersecurity is an important consideration for commercial vehicles. ATA has taken steps to help ensure a robust cybersecurity environment for motor carriers. ATA is developing a motor carrier-based program for sharing information about emerging cyber threats and attacks. This program will focus 

on the unique threats to truck fleets, and will coordinate with the Auto-ISAC, which 

has recently opened its membership to truck manufacturers and equipment suppliers. ATA has also been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 

DHS, and intelligence sharing and analysis groups including the National Motor 

Freight Traffic Association Heavy Vehicle Cybersecurity Working Group, and the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Volpe Center Commercial Truck Cyber 

Working Group. ATA also has a seat on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Cyber 

Leadership Council. ATA’s Technical Advisory Group and Technology & Engineering 

Policy Committee have been working with our members to provide industry thought 

leadership and to raise awareness of motor carrier and supply chain risk and 

cybercrime prevention. 

In June, the U.S. Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development & Engineering 

Center (TARDEC) held a CyberTruck Challenge where truck OEM engineers and 

30 

university students attempted to hack into trucks to identify potential vulnerabilities. Later this month, ATA’s Technology & Maintenance Council will host its first 

CyberTech challenge at our National Technician Skills Competition which will help 

technicians diagnose and detect cyber attacks. 

All of these initiatives are working to keep trucking safe as it moves toward connected and automated driving. 

Policy Recommendations to Support Safety Innovations 

The trucking industry relies on an interstate highway system that facilitates the 

free flow of goods between the states. As automated truck technology is developed, 

tested, and commercialized, it is critical that federal, state and local laws do not create disparities that limit commerce and obstruct the successful adoption of these potentially safety- and productivity-boosting technologies. The regulation of performance and technical specifications of automated and connected truck technology 

should be solely the responsibility of the Federal Government. States should maintain their existing responsibilities that do not interfere with the flow of interstate 

commerce. In the absence of Federal regulation, states should support operations of 

commercial motor vehicle automated and connected technologies within their rights 

of intrastate jurisdiction. However, conflicting requirements among Federal and 

State agencies will create roadblocks to deployment of automated technology, delaying the safety benefits, fuel savings, emissions reductions, and potential efficiency 

improvements to our country’s transportation system. The Federal Government 

must take a clear leadership role and, where necessary, exercise Federal preemption 

to ensure that there is no conflict between Federal and state regulations. It is critically important to provide certainty to the developers of automated technology for 

all vehicles that there will not be a disparate set of state laws, now or in the future, 

that unnecessarily impede the ability of a company to test and operate vehicles with 

their technology across state lines and in interstate commerce. Without this certainty, innovation will be slowed as companies divert resources to addressing a 

patchwork of state policies, or find that the vehicles they developed in Nevada cannot be operated in California and they need to make changes to their designs. 

As automated vehicle technology is rapidly developing, it is important that government policy and regulations support innovation and do not inhibit the flexibility 

of carriers to choose automated technologies best suited to their individual needs. 

Federal agencies and state governments should be fully committed to encouraging 

innovation in both commercial and passenger vehicles to bring safety and other benefits to all road users. Exemptions from existing Federal regulations that will allow 

new technology to be developed and tested is one way to help support innovation 

while also gathering data that could inform future standards and policies. NHTSA 

already has authority in this area, but exemptions are now limited to 2,500 vehicles 

per manufacturer per year, with each exemption lasting for a period of two years. 

Expanding the number and duration of exemptions from standards that prevent 

new safety technology from being put on the road will allow more real-world data 

to be collected more quickly, which will lead to improved system design and better 

information for making both regulatory and business decisions. To be clear, the exemption process does not automatically provide a manufacturer with the ability to 

avoid any or all safety standards. It is a rigorous process which requires a manufacturer to apply for the exemption and provide information that will allow NHTSA 

to make its determination based on, among other things, equivalent or better safety 

levels and the overall public interest. Increasing the number and duration of the exemptions would not relax safety, but rather provide a faster path to achieving higher levels of safety and updated regulations. 

It is important to note, too, that the Federal preemption and exemption changes 

we are recommending support not only innovation of fully automated vehicles, but 

also the levels of partial automation that will bring safety benefits as well. 

Coordination among Federal agencies is another way to remove barriers and more 

fully realize benefits that can come from automation. ATA sees great potential for 

vehicle connectivity using the 5.9 GHz Safety Spectrum to improve the performance 

of automated vehicles. Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) 

communication using the Safety Spectrum can save lives and reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions. The benefits of V2V/V2I technology will grow when coupled with automated vehicle technology, and vice versa. As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers action that would allow other uses of the 5.9 GHz 

spectrum that was allocated for V2V and V2I communication, we believe it is important that any decisions over sharing the Safety Spectrum should be driven first and 

foremost by public safety, preserving all 7 channels of spectrum for safety. The FCC 

should take no action that could jeopardize the vehicle safety initiatives that the 

DOT is pursuing with this spectrum. 

31 

Federal agencies should also begin the work of evaluating the benefits of connected and automated technology on public safety and the economy, considering 

both passenger and commercial vehicles. A better understanding of how these technologies may benefit the public along with consideration of how regulations can be 

changed to take advantage of the capabilities that this new technology provides will 

lead to better policy decisions and the development of a regulatory framework that 

help to realize these benefits. For example, in the commercial sector, FMCSA should 

begin to review Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and see what might be 

changed to account for the new driving environment with automated technology 

where the driver may be in the seat but not operating the controls. Perhaps there 

can be changes made in hours of service that would improve productivity without 

reducing safety? How should speeds be managed with connected and automated 

technology? What will be the impact of connected and automated technology on CSA 

scores, liability, and insurance? These are questions that should be considered by 

DOT along with an examination of the impact on interstate commerce of conflicting 

state laws and the importance of preserving a seamless set of safety standards to 

minimize disruptions to the economy and the national supply chain. A thorough examination of these issues will help insure that the future regulatory framework is 

correct, not flawed. 

Conclusion 

ATA supports the development of automated vehicle technology for all vehicle 

types. This technology has the potential for improving safety, the environment, reducing congestion, and saving fuel. While there are concerns about the impact automated technologies will have on the future of work, affected stakeholders should embrace this coming innovation and work together to prepare the workforce to operate 

with the new technology. Some may see a driverless future, but with the complexity 

and diversity of the trucking industry, we expect the driver will retain an important 

role in trucking for a long time to come, with automated truck technology that will 

improve safety and productivity. 

To prepare for the future, Federal agencies should begin the work of evaluating 

the benefits of connected and automated technology on public safety and the economy, and reviewing regulations to see what changes could be made to take advantage of the capabilities that this new technology provides. Preserving a seamless set 

of safety standards across the country will help to minimize disruptions to the economy and the national supply chain, and support the development of new technology. 

Trucking plays a critical role in our economy—keeping the shelves of our local supermarkets fully stocked; delivering life-saving medical supplies to hospitals and 

clinics; and delivering goods at every stage of production from raw materials to the 

store shelf—and it should not be left out of any legislation that supports innovation 

in automated vehicle technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Spear. 

Mr. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF KEN HALL, 

GENERAL SECRETARY TREASURER, 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 

Mr. HALL. Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today on an issue that is of vital importance to American workers. 

I’m the General Secretary-Treasurer of the Teamsters union, the 

Nation’s largest transportation union, representing workers in almost every transportation industry. Teamsters members could be 

delivering anything from bakery goods to concrete, palletized material, to your latest online package, or getting you to work on time 

and safely transporting your kids to school. 

While nearly 600,000 of our 1.4 million members turn a key in 

a truck to start their workday, the issues that we will be discussing 

today don’t just impact those who drive vehicles for a living. A future that includes partial and fully autonomous vehicles could also 

change the nature of work for those in nearly every part of the 

transportation industry in our country. 

32 

Planning for the future and incorporating new technologies into 

our members’ daily lives is not new to me or to my union. In addition to my duties as General Secretary Treasurer, for over 20 years 

I also served as Director of the Union’s Package Division, and in 

this position, I ran the Teamsters daily interactions with UPS, 

under the single largest collective bargaining agreement in North 

America. 

The issues facing the 250,000 Teamsters who work for UPS are 

inextricably tied to the incorporation of new technology. The logistics industry as a whole has changed extraordinarily over time, and 

Teamsters have been in the thick of it. We have strived to balance 

the incorporation of countless pieces of new technology into the 

workplace while ensuring that workers are guaranteed a right to 

avoid harassment and to always feel safe on the job. My career has 

shown me that new technologies can exist in an environment 

where workers are still taken care of. But it takes strong and aggressive action from those workers to make sure that happens. 

Self-driving vehicles have the potential to change the transportation industry as we know it. That can be for the better or for the 

worse, depending on the actions of this Committee, workers, and 

others take in guiding their implementation onto our roads. It is 

incumbent upon the members of this Committee to help ensure 

that workers are not left behind in this process. It is essential that 

American workers are not treated as guinea pigs for unproven 

technologies that could put their lives at risk. 

The issues facing autonomous commercial trucks are fundamentally different and potentially more calamitous than those facing 

passenger cars and warrant their own careful consideration. The 

consequences for getting this wrong could be deadly both for workers and other drivers on the roads. The public discussion in Congress on autonomous vehicles has tended to focus on the impact of 

small personal cars on our daily lives, increasing mobility for the 

disabled, and alleviating congestion in our cities. These are all important topics. But taking a cookie-cutter approach in dealing with 

those issues and applying it to heavy vehicles is reckless. 

For instance, I have yet to hear a serious discussion about how 

we will make sure an 80,000-pound automated truck will be able 

to maneuver around a warehouse or drop yard and not injure the 

countless workers also occupying that same space, or how we would 

make sure that the rules governing a driver’s training requirements would be updated the moment one of those new vehicles is 

put on the road. And we haven’t gotten to the largest issue of them 

all, the potential impact on the livelihoods and wages of millions 

of your constituents. These issues should be considered carefully 

and deliberately at the outset of this discussion, not after the fact. 

For all the discussion here about the potential benefits that may 

accompany this technology, I urge you to consider these possibilities with a healthy dose of realism. When you hear manufacturers 

tell you that a list of strong safety metrics will translate into effortless deployment on the roads, I urge you to recall some of the other 

issues that this Committee has so furiously worked on this year. 

This Committee has spearheaded investigations into Volkswagen 

knowingly cheating its customers out of emission benefits. The airbag manufacturer Takata knowingly sold defective airbags that 

33 

have claimed the lives of American citizens. Market forces did not 

convince these companies not to cheat and push the envelope past 

what was safe, and that same mentality is a constant factor in the 

trucking space where margins are consistently tight and competition is fierce. The fear of many transportation workers is that, absent strong action and guidance from this Committee and others, 

a new generation of autonomous vehicles will provide limitless opportunity for this same pattern of reckless behavior. 

There are so many impacts to consider. Unchecked, this new 

technology could open up our citizens to having their privacy 

breached and personal data sold. Issues such as worker harassment and tracking would be intertwined with existing collective 

bargaining agreements and workplace policies. A truck driver will 

have to think about having his rig hacked and used as the next 

weapon in a Nice or Barcelona-style attack, and millions of Americans could have their paychecks decreased because half of their job 

has now been automated away and their employer thinks that it 

can get away with no longer paying them the full wage they once 

did. 

I applaud you for having this hearing with the Teamsters’ voice 

at the table. I look forward to working with the Committee to ensure the priorities and concerns of working families remain at the 

center of this debate. In all aspects of automation, but especially 

when we’re considering commercial motor vehicles, it is more important to get it done correctly rather than just get done quickly. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEN HALL, GENERAL SECRETARY TREASURER, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Peters, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on an issue that 

is of vital importance to American workers. 

My name is Ken Hall. I am the General Secretary Treasurer of the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters. The Teamsters Union is the Nation’s largest transportation union, representing workers in almost every transportation industry. Teamster members could be delivering anything from bakery goods to concrete, palletized 

material to your latest online package—or getting you to work on time and safely 

transporting your kids to school. 

While nearly 600,000 of our 1.4 million members turn a key in a truck to start 

their workday, the issues we will be discussing today don’t just impact those who 

drive vehicles for a living. A future that includes partial and fully autonomous vehicles could also change the nature of work for those in nearly every part of the transportation industry in our country. 

Planning for the future and incorporating new technologies into our members’ 

daily lives is not new to me or to my Union. In addition to my duties as General 

Secretary Treasurer, for over twenty years I also served as director of the union’s 

package division. In this position I ran the Teamsters daily interactions with UPS, 

under the single largest collective bargaining agreement in North America. 

The issues facing the 250,000 Teamsters who work for UPS are inextricably tied 

to the incorporation of new technology. The logistics industry as a whole has 

changed extraordinarily over time and Teamsters have been in the thick of it. We 

have strived to balance the incorporation of countless pieces of new technology into 

the workplace while ensuring that workers are guaranteed a right to avoid harassment and to always feel safe on the job. My career has shown me that new technologies can exist in an environment where workers are still taken care of. But it 

takes strong and aggressive action from those workers to make sure that happens. 

Self-driving vehicles have the potential to change the transportation industry as 

we know it. That can be for the better or for the worse depending on the actions 

that this committee, workers, and others take in guiding their implementation onto 

34 

our roads. It is incumbent upon the members of this committee to help ensure that 

workers are not left behind in this process. It is essential that American workers 

are not treated as guinea pigs for unproven technologies that could put their lives 

at risk. 

The issues facing autonomous commercial trucks are fundamentally different, and 

potentially more calamitous than those facing passenger cars, and warrant their 

own careful consideration. The consequences for getting this wrong could be deadly 

both for workers and other drivers on the roads. The public discussion in Congress 

on autonomous vehicles has tended to focus on the impact of small personal cars 

on our daily lives—increasing mobility for the disabled, and alleviating congestion 

in our cities. These are all important topics. But taking a cookie cutter approach 

in dealing with those issues and applying it to heavy vehicles is reckless. 

For instance, I have yet to hear a serious discussion about how we will make sure 

an 80,000 pound automated truck will be able to maneuver around a warehouse or 

drop yard and not injure the countless workers also occupying that same space. Or 

how we would make sure that the rules governing a driver’s training requirements 

would be updated the moment one of these new vehicles is put on the road. And 

we haven’t gotten to the largest issue of them all, the potential impact on the livelihoods and wages of millions of your constituents. These issues should be considered 

carefully and deliberately at the outset of this discussion, not after the fact. 

For all of the discussion here about the potential benefits that may accompany 

this technology, I urge you to consider these possibilities with a healthy dose of realism. When you hear manufacturers tell you that a list of strong safety metrics will 

translate into effortless deployment on the roads, I urge you to recall some of the 

other issues that this committee has so furiously worked on this year. 

This committee has spearheaded investigations into VW knowingly cheating its 

customers out of emission benefits. The airbag manufacturer Takata knowingly sold 

defective airbags that have claimed the lives of American citizens. Market forces did 

not convince these companies not to cheat and push the envelope past what was 

safe. And that same mentality is a constant factor in the trucking space where margins are consistently tight and competition is fierce. The fear of many transportation 

workers is that absent strong action and guidance from this committee and others, 

a new generation of autonomous vehicles will provide limitless opportunity for this 

same pattern of reckless behavior. 

There are so many impacts to consider. Unchecked, this new technology could 

open our citizens up to having their privacy breached and personal data sold. Issues 

such as worker harassment and tracking would be intertwined with existing collective bargaining agreements and workplace policies. A truck driver will have to think 

about having his rig hacked and used as the next weapon in a Nice or Barcelonastyle attack, and millions of Americans could have their paychecks decreased because half of their job has now been automated away and their employer thinks that 

it can get away with no longer paying them the full wage they once did. 

I applaud you for having this hearing with the Teamsters’ voice at the table. I 

look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that the priorities and concerns of working families remain at the center of this debate. In all aspects of automation, but especially when we are considering commercial motor vehicles, it is 

more important to get it done correctly rather than just done quickly. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

And thanks again to all of you for your testimony. And we’ll have 

an opportunity to have members of the Committee to ask some 

questions. And I’ll start with Colonel Hernandez. 

Based on your years of experience, do you think that autonomous 

vehicle technology can advance safety for trucks? 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. Absolutely. I think that, as we’ve heard, it 

already has in many ways. But witnessing what happened on October 20 of last year, it was clear that there are some advantages. 

And a couple of those that I probably didn’t capture in my initial 

testimony was the hours, and the demonstration was at night when 

there was reduced traffic. And so that was both for safety concerns, 

and will be for safety concerns in the future. So just the timing possibilities. And it was, like I said, a Level 4 demonstration. And 

what that meant was that there was still a driver there to get that 

35 

vehicle onto the highway and then into the terminal area. So that 

driver was involved in that process. 

But without a doubt, I believe that there are some advantages. 

I think the key is, is that we’re all at the table to discuss with 

them, to discuss this together, through the process and make sure 

that commercial vehicles are not left out. I think the fact that 

they’ve already demonstrated this puts us behind, and I think that 

it shouldn’t be left further behind in the process. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Hersman, the crashes that you highlighted 

in your testimony are horrible, and yet could have been prevented 

or mitigated with crash-avoidance technology. And you mentioned 

that we cannot continue to do things the same way. Since trucks 

are involved in some of the most jarring examples that you’ve cited, 

would you say that accelerating the deployment of automated vehicles or automated trucks should provide significant safety benefits? 

Ms. HERSMAN. Yes. With proper testing and controls, I think this 

is the game changer when it comes to highway fatalities. Advanced 

technology can solve many problems that we’ve struggled with for 

decades. And I think it’s important to have the conversations and 

the issues that you’ve outlined in your bill. Whether it’s data sharing, testing protocols, engagement of all of the right stakeholders, 

these are all things we need to begin to discuss. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. 

Mr. Clarke, is there any reason to think that when it comes to 

automated vehicles, that Federal safety standards governing core 

automated technologies, things like sensors and radar, should be 

fundamentally different for trucks and cars and develop at different speeds? 

Mr. CLARKE. The fact of the matter is, is that the basic sensor 

technology and some of that type of componentry which are put on 

the truck is very similar to what is in cars. However, our heavy vehicles are much different than cars. They weigh more, they take 

longer to stop, they have high centers of gravity. In fact, one of the 

reasons why we need to advance at the rate we are is because of 

the fact that some of the solutions that allow the heavy vehicle to 

perform in a similar manner to a light vehicle have yet to be engineered. 

We need the data from real-life, in-hands use by real customers 

to understand what the proper validation processes and practices, 

you know, will be, or what the engineering problems are that we 

need to solve. We see no reason why commercial trucks should 

move forward in this area at a different speed or under a different 

timetable than light vehicles. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Spear, this appears to be an instance in 

which many trucking companies and manufacturers are actually 

pushing for more Federal regulation of the industry. Could you explain the reasons why you think more leadership from the Federal 

Government will accelerate the safety benefits of this new technology? 

Mr. SPEAR. I wouldn’t say that it’s more regulation, but at least 

one standard, one seamless Federal standard, and that comes from 

Federal leadership. So we would push and advocate heavily for 

that as opposed to 50 different state regulatory regimes. We’re 

interstate commerce. We move the economy. Seventy percent of the 

36 

freight was in your opening remarks. That’s no small figure. And 

we cross state lines every day. And it’s a reality that our drivers 

face every day, and, you know, compliance with multiple state regimes would be very disruptive to the economy, to these companies, 

and I think it would be a jobs issue over time if we’re not able to 

move freight in a productive way, in a safe way, and obviously in 

a profitable way. 

So having one seamless standard at the Federal level is what we 

would advocate, and it’s certainly a much better approach in our 

view than a patchwork of state laws, conflicting state laws. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you. 

Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 

each of our witnesses for outstanding testimony here today as we 

begin this very important discussion about trucks and autonomy. 

Mr. Hall, I couldn’t agree with you more that we need to get this 

right, that there is a great deal of potential in this technology. We 

have to do it right and we have to be thoughtful about it, and 

that’s certainly why we have spent so much time on this issue related to automobiles. As I mentioned in my opening comments, 

hours and hours of conversations with all stakeholders. 

It has been a very comprehensive program as we’ve focused on 

automobiles. But as everyone has said, trucks are different than 

automobiles, and one of those differences deals with the employment impact, which I think you stated very clearly. 

And I think, Mr. Spear, you mentioned it’s the top job in over 

20 states. 

So folks who we represent in our communities, it could potentially have a significant impact, and one that we have to think very 

carefully about, the impact that it’s going to have on our communities in our state. 

Mr. Spear, in your testimony, you said that the ATA believes 

that the driver will retain an important role in trucking even in 

automated vehicles, or if I may paraphrase, I think that’s in your 

written testimony. And I think we all could agree that we don’t 

want to see large-scale job losses. But I didn’t see in your testimony any data, studies, best practices, or business plans that address how a company operating today is prepared to address driver 

displacement. 

Now, Mr. Clarke mentioned that drivers would still have a role 

in platooning, as an example of how a driver would be in that business model, but even that means a displacement of drivers. If you 

are platooning trucks, that means you have several trucks driving 

together, and normally you have each of those trucks with a driver 

in the front, and now you may just have one driver in front of a 

platoon. So there are differences. 

So my question to you, Mr. Spear, and certainly to Mr. Clarke 

as well, What are you doing internally to prepare for possible driver displacement as a result of highly automated trucks? 

Mr. SPEAR. Quite frankly, we don’t view it as a displacement 

issue because we don’t believe Level 5, no steering wheel, no pedals, is imminent. What we’re really focused on is driver-assist technologies, not driverless. And if that’s acceptable in this Committee, 

then we’re really talking about, How do we enable drivers to be 

37 

safer, more productive, equipment more environmentally friendly, 

less congestion? These are all measurable returns that our fleets 

will invest in and are good for drivers as well. We’d like them to 

be less fatigued, better rested. And if technology can play a role in 

that, that’s good for the entire motoring public. 

But in terms of driver displacement, we already have a 

$50,000—50,000-driver shortage as it stands, and if that trend continues, it will be double in 5 years. We have to hire 960,000 employees over the next decade into this industry. So we’re pushing 

hard to bring more talent into the industry. That’s what our fleets 

are preparing for, not for displacement. 

And to the degree that it is driver-assist technology, we welcome 

that. And ways that we can measure better productivity and safety, 

lower emissions, less congestion, those are all things that we’d be 

very interested, and that’s why we feel trucks need to be part of 

this legislation. 

Driverless, Level 5, that’s decades away, and it’s just not even in 

the scope of our fleets’ vision at this point, but I think Level 2 and 

3 are. So with that, I think driver-assist is much more reasonable 

and why we’re not concerned about displacement at this time. 

Senator PETERS. When you say that driverless technology for 

trucks is decades away, and yet for automobiles, it’s just a few 

years away, why the difference? 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I think I would agree with my colleague Mr. 

Hall. He is struggling to find an argument where you are going to 

have a driverless truck navigate in a scenario where it’s going to 

do a dropoff or a pickup. We wouldn’t argue with that because we 

think the driver is still going to be in the seat. It’s really the long 

haul where you’re going to see a lot of the value come from driverassist technology, Levels 2 and 3. 

So we don’t believe that that’s going to be a threat. We think 

drivers are going to play an intricate role in the cityscapes, the 

pickups, the deliveries, but in terms of the long haul where you can 

see efficiencies to lowering fuel burn, lowering emissions, better 

safety by having connectivity between trucks, cars, infrastructure, 

those are all good things that are going to really improve safety in 

our opinion. So we don’t look at it as a threat, certainly not in the 

near term. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Hall, you obviously have a different perspective, and I would like you to have an opportunity to hear a little bit more about your perspective after Mr. Spear’s testimony. 

Mr. HALL. Well, I was certainly happy to hear his testimony, but, 

you know, we look at this as—first of all, let me be clear. Our 

union has always been willing to talk about new technology. If you 

look at the workplaces that we represent, they look very unsimilar 

to warehousing and all these other different aspects of industries 

that we represent. They’re much different than they were when I 

began as a Teamster. But there is very much of a difference here 

when we’re talking about having an 80,000-pound vehicle barreling 

down the road. 

We are not opposed to looking at some of the changes that we 

have heard here, but to have a tractor-trailer going down the road 

without a driver, which is what I believe is coming, then I think 

38 

there are lots of reasons why we should be concerned about that, 

and not the least of which is cybersecurity. 

I mean, we—no matter what technology you put into these 

trucks, we’ve seen already in areas around the world where large 

trucks have been used to essentially attack the citizens of those 

particular areas. And so that’s one of the things that I think we 

have a lot of work to do before we can go to this—before we can 

advance with the larger trucks. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Spear, what do you say to that cyber threat 

argument that Mr. Hall raised? 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I think it’s a serious issue, and I think the auto 

industry and the trucking industry are very committed to ensuring—there is nobody out there that wants their equipment to be 

compromised. So I think putting together very strong protocols in 

concert with Federal policies. We work very regularly not only with 

DOT and NHTSA, but also with DHS. I would agree with Mr. Hall, 

I don’t think you want a tank truck that’s driverless in an ISIS 

world. That is not something we’re advocating. 

So going back to the earlier discussion about driver displacement, that is not something that we believe is in the foreseeable 

future, but where we can use technology to enhance, you know, the 

safety and the productivity of the fleets and the driver, we’re all 

in on that. 

Senator WICKER. So just as we guard against cyber threats with 

airlines and other aspects of our economy, we can answer that 

question with the trucking question. Is that your position? 

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, I think so. We work very closely with DHS, FBI, 

Volpe. 

Senator WICKER. OK. 

Mr. SPEAR. We’ve been working with DOD on testing. Trucks 

have been a very integral part of cybersecurity testing protocols, 

and now with the ISAC at the auto industry, the Information Sharing Advisory Committee, they are now accepting our companies to 

be a participant in that realm. So now you’re going to have the 

auto industry and the trucking industry comparing best practice to 

make certain there’s a seamless protocol that’s—— 

Senator WICKER. Well, let me get to another couple of topics. 

Mr. Spear and Mr. Hall, do you agree that we do have an impending truck driver shortage? 

Is that your position, Mr. Spear? 

And is that your position, Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. It is. 

Mr. SPEAR. It is. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Well, Mr. Spear, it seems to me, based on 

your testimony, that actually going to a Level 2 or 3, really you’re 

saying that’s really not going to be an answer to the trucker shortage because we’re still going to need basically the same number of 

truck drivers. Is that correct? 

39 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, it’s not a clearly defined answer. However, I 

like to use the analogy of generational gaps. I can usually fix a lot 

of things on my phone and laptop, but it’s easier to hand them to 

my kids. I can get it done a heck of a lot quicker than I can. And 

what we would like to see in terms of the new generation of drivers 

and technicians is to speak to that generation. This technology does 

that. And to make trucking cool, to make trucking attractive, techsavvy in this generation, I think is a good fit. 

And I think we’re ushering in a lot of new talent that’s going to 

be able to really cope with this technology and make it work to the 

benefit of society. So we believe in that. It may be more indirect, 

but we think that that is an attractive element in terms of bringing 

new talent into our industry—— 

Senator WICKER. OK, I see. So we can add to the workforce. Let 

me ask you about your statement on the 5.9 GHz safety spectrum. 

If we don’t get that and we don’t get the exclusive use of that, as 

your testimony advocates, what would that mean? 

Mr. SPEAR. I think it would be a huge setback. I’m a bit more 

bullish on this issue than others. We do work closely with the National Safety Council on this issue and feel that having connectivity 

between cars, trucks, and infrastructure is, in my opinion, the secret sauce because now you don’t have cars cutting off trucks. And 

two-thirds of the accidents that involve trucks are caused by passenger vehicles, driver behavior, speeding, texting. 

So connectivity plays a key role as that becomes more of a problem, eliminating congestion. These are huge issues that gain from 

connectivity through that 5.9. If we don’t have that, you’re simply 

going to be working off of other applications. Bluetooth, for instance. We look a lot at platooning in our industry, trucks trailing 

trucks. That’s done basically on a Bluetooth platform. I’m not saying that’s a bad platform to work from, but a much more robust 

and safer platform would certainly be a 5.9, and preserving that for 

safety would be something that we would advocate. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Mr. Clarke, we have information in our Committee brief about 

advances in our competitor countries in this regard. Germany, 

United Kingdom, South Korea, even China, are working hard at 

this. Who’s ahead of whom in this area? And what can we learn 

from the experiences of the other countries? And if you can, touch 

on the connectivity issue that Mr. Spear touched on. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes, thank you, Senator. Actually, on the connectivity issue, you know, I would endorse comments of Mr. Spear. 

Look, connected vehicles see much further than any driver. Connected vehicles can be prepared to avoid circumstances, and certainly engage the driver in ways that are not possible today, seeing 

miles ahead to weather, road conditions, congestion, other type of 

circumstances. It is the secret sauce, I think, and really is one of 

the keys to unlocking the potential of this technology. 

Senator WICKER. How are our global competitors doing? 

Mr. CLARKE. You know, this is—you know, in some of the trade 

journals you may have read, you know, this is the space race of our 

industry basically. There are a number of technologies that are 

coming together, and very interestingly, a number of those technology leads come out of the United States. And, you know, the 

40 

sensor technology, the AI and machine learning technology that’s 

necessary to take advantage of this, the very sophisticated digital 

3-dimensional LIDAR maps that are running in the background 

and supporting this software, these are all areas where we have 

the edge. 

Senator WICKER. We’re ahead of Germany, United Kingdom, and 

South Korea, and China in the basic regard. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir, in the basics, we are. 

Senator WICKER. And that’s a good thing. 

Mr. CLARKE. It is. What we need to do is to continue to press forward with the integration of these into real platforms, putting 

them into real service so that we can collect the data to allow us 

to do the analytics to bring forward the right type of regulations 

and applications. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. And I would agree. 

I think in terms of the transformative effects and impacts of this 

technology, the closest thing in recent memory would be the Internet. I just think this is going to transform the way we do things. 

And I would concur with the statement that has been made about 

truckers. Just anecdotally, trucking companies in my state cannot 

find enough drivers, and there is a real shortage out there. 

So thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Next up is Senator Young. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I’ve really enjoyed 

this conversation. It’s very important to my home State of Indiana, 

where we have a robust logistics industry, and a very serious shortage of truck drivers to keep that industry going. So I think we 

might have a big part of the solution being presented today. 

So in 2015, there were over 35,000 lives taken for one reason or 

another on our Nation’s highways. Over 800 of those fatalities were 

on highways in my home State of Indiana. NHTSA estimates that 

as many as 94 percent of crashes can be attributed to human driver error, so you can see the potential AVs bring simply in terms 

of lives saved. So another big benefit to Hoosiers. 

That’s not the complete story. AVs could change the lives of individuals who today rely on friends, family, and others to drive themselves around, to drive them around our communities. You think 

of the blind, the disabled, the elderly, and others who could have 

a far greater quality of life when AVs allow them to become more 

independent, but also more integrated into the day-to-day lives of 

our communities. 

The National Council on Disability noted in a previous hearing 

that we held that automated vehicles hold great promise to advance social inclusion by offering people with disabilities independent mobility to get to schools, jobs, and all places that Americans go each day. To get to a point where AVs can provide such 

a societal benefit, Congress will have to allow the technology to advance for both vehicles below 10,000 pounds and most likely for vehicles above 10,000 pounds. I’m afraid if we bifurcate the regulatory environments for small and large vehicles, we’re going to 

41 

delay these life-saving and life-changing benefits that AV technology can bring to all Americans. 

Mr. Spear, regarding the threat of AI or automation becoming 

net job losses for our economy, you predicted that truckers will be 

more like airline pilots. That’s sort of a compelling thought. I think 

it offers promise to our future truck drivers or operators to work 

in a profession where they add more value or earn higher wages, 

and so forth, at least as you’ve styled it. 

Could you expand on that? Because I think the popular perception is that when you get on a commercial airline, the pilot is controlling the plane the entire time, and we know that’s not the case. 

So what would the role of the trucker be as we look into the future? 

Mr. SPEAR. I think it would be very similar. I know this plays 

a little bit off of Mr. Hall’s testimony, too, because we share that 

concern. What many people don’t see are the pickups, the deliveries, the navigating of the cityscapes. There is some really complex maneuvering with this equipment that takes a lot of talent behind the wheel to make that happen. And with all the variables 

that they’re dealing with, they’re not automated, they’re not Level 

5. 

So unless we’re going to remove all human error from all vehicles 

on the road, you’re going to need drivers in the seat handling 

80,000-pound vehicles, in our opinion. Very similar concept to airline pilots. It’s the takeoffs, the taxiways, the landings, they’re all 

handled by the pilot in control. It’s really the long haul, and where 

that automatic pilot comes on where you see some of the values of 

that technology take over. The pilot is always there, can take over 

if conditions arise that warrant that. The same stands true for 

drivers and trucks. 

Senator YOUNG. And I haven’t heard the airline industry discuss 

eliminating pilots and going fully automated. 

Mr. SPEAR. And they could right now. I don’t want to put in a 

plug for my former employer, but working with Honeywell for 8 

years, you all fly, there are pilots in the cockpit—— 

Senator YOUNG. Right. 

Mr. SPEAR.—those cockpits, the automation that’s in these planes 

can take off, fly, and land all on their own. 

Senator YOUNG. And over the years, I would say we’ve had an 

increase in the number of pilots. And so our airline industry used 

to involve more pilot sort of intervention along the way. I would 

also indicate we saw an increase, at least for a period of time, in 

membership in their unions as well. So that’s notable. 

What is—could you discuss platooning? Because I’m not entirely 

sure what the role of the operator would be in the platooning process. 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, the platooning, it would involve a concept 

where a driver would be in the lead truck, and that pursuant 

trucks would follow possibly without a driver eventually, but up to 

two, three trailer trucks would follow the lead driver and they 

would be connected. Right now that’s being tested, as I said earlier, 

through Bluetooth technology. It’s why we feel the 5.9 would be a 

much greater platform, better platform, to connect vehicles because 

then you can include connecting cars. And so the accident that Ms. 

42 

Hersman put up on the slide there, if you have cars and trucks 

talking to one another, you really start to mitigate risk. 

Senator YOUNG. Well, this strikes me as really meaningful work 

as you think about the future of trucking, and one where we might 

attract more people into the labor market. So thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Young. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

and Senator Peters for your work on the legislation that raises 

some of the issues that bring us here today. 

I think we need rules and regulations in this area, rules that will 

guarantee safety. I was deeply disappointed by the guidance issued 

yesterday by NHTSA, which struck me as anemic, in effect, a giveaway to the industry, and it could result in lives lost unless we 

have enforceable rules and regulations that protect the traveling 

public, not just the folks who may be behind the wheel, but also 

passengers in vehicles out on the roads today. And driving continues to be one of the deadliest activities, as you observed, Ms. 

Hersman, and thank you for all your work in this area. 

The reason the framework issued yesterday concerned me so 

greatly is that it depends on voluntary self-assessments by the industry as opposed to mandatory rules. It was termed by one report 

‘‘even less burdensome,’’ quote, ‘‘even less burdensome,’’ than the 

voluntary one issued under the Obama administration. And the net 

effect would be to leave enforcement virtually toothless. 

So I am putting to you the question, to all of the witnesses here 

today, Isn’t it necessary to have mandatory rules and regulations 

enforced by the government, by the Department of Transportation, 

or some enforcer to protect the traveling public? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I think it’s absolutely true. There has to be— 

we’ve seen too many examples of—and that’s one of our concerns, 

is whether or not there is going to be the kind of oversight that’s 

necessary to protect the American public. I mean, we have seen too 

many cases, where, for example, in the case of Volkswagen, where 

everyone assumed that they were doing the right things. And while 

it’s a different issue with emissions, it is still the same issue that 

if a company is allowed to produce vehicles, whether it is automobiles or, in particular, when it’s 80,000-pound rigs, then there 

must be oversight. And that’s why I think it’s premature to think 

that these commercial vehicles should be included at this time. 

That is not to say that—and you know I want to—I am hopeful 

that we’re all willing to guarantee that we’re going to protect all 

those drivers’ jobs, but we’re certainly open to talking about anything that improves safety. But I am concerned when I know about 

the issues that have happened where the driver was killed that we 

just saw a report yesterday about, when Uber spent lots of money 

in the City of Pittsburgh in making sure that they measured down 

to the centimeter every street in that city, but yet one of the vehicles went the wrong way down a one-way street. That is—you 

know, on a one-way street, maybe there’s a way to control that. 

43 

We’ve got to be—we’ve got to have more thought, not that there’s 

not going to be a time, as I have listened here and agreed with 

some of my colleagues here, I understand that we are going to see 

some changes, but there has to be a lot more work done—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Does anyone on this panel think that the 

NHTSA guidance offers an adequate basis to go forward? 

Mr. SPEAR. I wouldn’t say, Senator, that it’s an end-all, you 

know, issuance of guidance. I think we’re heading down the path 

where you’re going to have that framework. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. It’s hardly a robust first step. Would you 

agree? 

Mr. SPEAR. I would say that it is a first step, and that’s better 

than nothing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But it ought to be a lot more robust? 

Mr. SPEAR. It will be a lot more. We are going to have a framework. We are moving in that direction. But I think at the same 

time, the only reason we’re having this discussion today is because 

innovation is driving this outcome, not regulations. So—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. The rules are as important as the technology, would you agree? 

Mr. SPEAR. I agree. And I think it’s getting the Federal Government on a good foundation to where it has great understanding 

and visibility where this technology is going to take us. You know, 

in my testimony, we advocate a Federal role—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the rules have to be enforceable. 

Mr. SPEAR. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And they should be enforced. 

Mr. SPEAR. And I think that’s the direction we’re going, and 

that’s why we believe trucks need to be part of it, but right—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But the rules have to keep pace with the 

technology, correct? 

Mr. SPEAR. I think eventually they will, but, yes, you’re correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, the ‘‘eventually’’ part is what concerns me because in the meantime, there will be a lot more deaths 

and injuries if the rules and enforceability of those rules fail to 

keep pace, correct? 

Mr. SPEAR. And I also think the same is true if you get the rules 

wrong. I think excluding the commercial industry would be a very 

big detriment to safety. I think inclusivity and getting this right 

from the start—we all share the road, and I think having a Federal 

role, sole authority, overseeing it, not a patchwork of state laws, 

that deals with all motors on the road, motors on the road, commercial or passenger, would be the best approach. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But relying on voluntary self-assessments 

and foregoing public oversight and enforcement I think is a mistake that would discredit the goal that we share of making technology available and accessible to as many people as possible and 

increasing safety through the use of technology. I think that revisiting this guidance is something that has to be done, and I hope 

it will be done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Lee. 

44 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to all of you who have joined us today as witnesses. 

As we consider the issue of autonomous vehicles this month, it’s 

becoming more and more clear that the future of American transportation is inextricably intertwined with the advent of automated 

technology, and I think it’s therefore really important that we 

think about this issue a lot and we move forward with it with an 

eye toward advancing it and allowing it to be developed. 

Automation is inevitable, and I think it would be neither wise 

nor appropriate nor necessary for Congress to stifle the advancement of this technology. At issue in this debate is not whether Congress should restrict or block or slow down the development of this 

technology, but it’s, rather, how Congress can best establish a regulatory framework, one that encourages and facilitates the development of life-saving technology, technology that will make the American people safer and more productive. 

The research and development of autonomous commercial motor 

vehicles is, I think, critical to this type of innovation, and should, 

therefore, be included in any legislation that we put forward this 

month. 

Now, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, trucking transportation occupations account for 

more work-related fatalities than perhaps any other profession. 

And it’s my understanding that 87 percent of truck-related collisions are caused by human error, not because people who are driving them are bad; they are, to the contrary, well trained and everything. But human beings make mistakes, and human error can inevitably lead to fatalities. 

So I have a question. I’ll start with Ms. Hersman. Given that 

trucks are involved in a disproportionate share of fatal vehicle 

crashes, wouldn’t automated trucking technology make sense and 

have the potential to have kind of an outsized benefit for American 

drivers? 

Ms. HERSMAN. Yes, technology has the potential to be that game 

changer when it comes to reducing fatalities. There is technology 

available today that we see can do this. Rear-end collisions are a 

great example, three times more fatal if you’re involved in a rearend collision with a truck, with a commercial vehicle, than a passenger car. We can all understand the physics of that. Automatic 

emergency braking, vehicle-to-vehicle technology can help with 

that. Automated vehicles are an extension of some of those technologies. 

Senator LEE. So in light of that fact, why would it make sense 

for us to put them on two different tracks, one in which we facilitate and promote and allow for the development in the case of passenger vehicles, but not in the area of commercial vehicles? 

Ms. HERSMAN. We don’t think it does make sense because in situations where we have put passenger cars on a fast track and we 

haven’t addressed commercial vehicles, electronic stability control 

is a good example. After there were some issues with rollovers involving Ford Explorers’ Bridgestone/Firestone tires, this Committee 

required that electronic stability control be mandated on passenger 

45 

vehicles. That occurred in the 2012 model year. We’re looking at 

not having that on commercial vehicles for many more years. That 

doesn’t make sense. We need one level of safety for everyone who’s 

on the roadways. 

Senator LEE. Colonel Hernandez, the House’s autonomous vehicle legislation is clearly limited to addressing vehicle design standards that will be administered by NHTSA, just as they’ve always 

done for both cars and for CMVs. I realize there’s a lot of interest 

and debate over the ultimate operations of autonomous CMVs, but 

the current bills simply don’t address that, and they’re assuring everyone’s safety during R&D. That being said, Colonel, would there 

be any reason to delay the fundamental safety framework for automated CMV design? 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. No, not at all. I think that we already saw 

a live example in Colorado where it’s jumped out in front. And it 

would be a lot better for us in the enforcement community to be 

able to be united and ahead of it as it relates to commercial motor 

vehicles. 

You know, we have many questions that are the same in the enforcement community, such as how to investigate a crash. And 

that—the advantage for us to understand how these technologies 

work, and work with the industry to learn how to better and reasonably regulate and enforce laws will have a much better advantage than separating the two, in my opinion. 

Senator LEE. It sounds like a considerable public safety gain. 

Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

And I would point out for those who think that the NHTSA guidance isn’t strong enough, that would argue to me for why we ought 

to have all these covered by the legislation. 

Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For all of the witnesses, just please answer yes or no. Do you believe that this Committee, as it actively works on legislation to promote the deployment of autonomous vehicles, that we should also 

create policies to help those working Americans who will lose their 

jobs because of these emerging technologies? 

Colonel Hernandez. 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. Yes, I believe that should be considered. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. 

Ms. HERSMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SPEAR. No. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Yes, except that hopefully we’re going to have a situation where we’re not going to lose jobs, as I have listened to various 

speakers talk about here today. 

Senator MARKEY. There is always destruction. You know, when 

they invented the ‘‘talkies,’’ all the piano players in the silent 

movie theaters all lost their jobs. OK? So you just think time moves 

46 

on and you have to just make sure that you’ve got a plan in place 

to ensure that that kind of protection is there. 

These vehicles are obviously already computers on wheels, and 

they’re going to continue to accelerate in that direction as the technology deploys. But obviously there are going to be vast opportunities for cyber threats to be launched against these vehicles since 

they’ll just be computers for all intents and purposes. 

Mr. Hall, do you believe that we should proactively develop robust mandatory regulations so that these vehicles are protected 

against cyber attacks as they are moving down the streets of our 

country? 

Mr. HALL. Oh, I absolutely do, and that’s one of the biggest concerns that I have. As I said earlier, the Teamsters union has 

worked with companies and industries around all over this country 

on innovation and to make companies more competitive. But in this 

case, and particularly the case of the cybersecurity, it is terrifying 

to me to think that we’ve got tractor-trailers rolling down the road 

that can be hacked, and to say that they can’t be in today’s world— 

and that’s one of the things that I think there has to be more— 

there has to be more information, more studies, to ensure that 

we’re not going to have that issue because, you know, no one 

thought we would have the credit card issue we’ve had in the past 

week where millions of people’s information has been—has been 

made—or become public. We didn’t think—— 

Senator MARKEY. I agree with you 100 percent, but, in fact, we 

were warned about all these things, that they can happen. It’s not 

so Equifax didn’t know that it could happen. It’s not as though the 

auto industry right now doesn’t know that these vehicles can be 

hacked. It’s all there, and I think the warnings are there. And I 

agree with you, Mr. Hall, we need those. 

Do you agree with that, Mr. Spear, that we need mandatory robust protections that are built in as rules of the road going forward? 

Mr. SPEAR. I think that’s where we’re headed. As we just got 

done discussing with Senator Blumenthal, I think the guidance, in 

his opinion, may be deficient, but it’s a first step toward something 

much more robust. This legislation that you’re now considering is 

a remarkable significant step toward formalizing the Federal role. 

So I think that’s exactly where we’re headed, and we know this is 

reality, it’s not just cars and trucks, it’s across the board. 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate it. And that’s why I’ve introduced 

the legislation the SPY Car Act, that directs NHTSA to establish 

cybersecurity protections for all vehicles. I’ve introduced that with 

Senator Blumenthal and others on the Committee. And I just think 

that we should be considering that at the same time we’re talking 

about this new era unfolding. 

And, finally, on the issue of privacy, obviously, since they are 

computers on wheels, there’s going to be a vast amount of information about all Americans that’s going to be gathered as they are 

moving around this country. Do you think that we should be ensuring that this information which is gathered by the auto companies 

or by others about all of our individual habits, where we go, what 

we do, all the information that can be gathered as these computers 

47 

are being used, that they should be able to be reused and resold 

as information without the permission of the family? 

Colonel Hernandez. 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. You know, I really don’t know that I’m 

qualified to answer that question. I think that perhaps that information may be out there with cell phones and others now, but I 

think that that’s something that perhaps—— 

Senator MARKEY. OK. 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. Yes. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you have a view, Mr. Hall, whether or not 

we should be providing privacy protections for people to make sure 

that information is protected? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I do think that. I mean, I think there’s no question that we continue to see—I mean, we’re talking about protecting people’s privacy involves a lot of things including getting involved in their—when you’re talking about getting into someone’s 

personal life, you’re talking about their personal finances, you’re 

talking about a lot of issues that we have seen just recently that 

is major problems that we have to protect against. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Gardner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the witnesses today. 

Colonel Hernandez, welcome to the Committee. I know you’ve 

served Colorado State Patrol over 30 years, and we’re grateful for 

your service and leadership, so thank you. 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. Colonel Hernandez, I don’t know 

if you’ve marked the calendar yet or not, but February 19 is an important day in Colorado. It’s Presidents’ Day. It’s a Monday. It’s 

also a great ski weekend. Monday night, you know what happens, 

everybody is coming back to the airport, they’re coming back home, 

they’re going back to the Front Range. How many new tunnels 

through the Eisenhower Tunnel do you think it would take for us 

to adequately provide capacity for the number of vehicles that we’d 

see? You don’t have to answer that question. 

Colonel Hernandez: Yes, it would take many new tunnels. 

Senator GARDNER. Many, many tunnels. And we’re just simply 

not going to do it. I mean, do you see autonomous vehicle technology, vehicle-to-vehicle technology, as a way to manage traffic 

through those chokepoints like that Presidents’ Day ski traffic 

through the Eisenhower Tunnel? 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. I believe that it might be the only way to 

manage that type of traffic. 

Senator GARDNER. I agree with you, too. And I also want to commend you and your leadership again and talk about some of the 

toughest things that we’ve seen over the past several years. Trooper Cody Donahue was killed on I–25 by a vehicle that didn’t move 

over when he was assisting another crash on the side of the road. 

48 

Vehicle-to-vehicle technology, autonomous vehicles, could be used 

to assist in this type of a situation perhaps to avoid that type of 

accident. Could it be used that way? 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. Absolutely. The technology is there to be 

able to do that, and I believe that in that case, very hard—hard 

on the agency and hard on me and hard on the family. And it could 

have been avoided. And I think that through this technology, it absolutely could have been avoided because there was a prior crash. 

And so often these are secondary crashes. And that takes the lives 

of many people, is that secondary crash. And I think that’s one of 

the huge advantages to this type of technology both in cars and 

commercial vehicles. 

Senator GARDNER. Yes. And so I think one of the challenges we 

have is not just, you know, whether we get there, if we get there, 

but it’s how we do it in a way that manages safety, how we do it 

in a way that answers a very uncertain question for people of this 

country. One out of every 20 jobs in Colorado is a truck-driving job. 

And I grew up in a small town in the Eastern Plains of Colorado, 

and we have a lot of truck drivers there. And one of them came 

up to me one day and said, ‘‘Did you see the truck delivery from 

Ft. Collins to Colorado Springs?’’ that you talked about in your 

opening comments. And I said, ‘‘Yes. Wasn’t it great?’’ And his response to me, a gentleman I’ve known my entire life said, ‘‘Yes. 

What’s going to happen to me?’’ He’s a truck driver. 

And I think we, as policymakers, we, in industry, we have to figure out how we’re going to be able to answer that question of, 

What’s going to happen to them? Because the answer isn’t going 

to be, well, there are going to be fewer jobs and fewer opportunities; the answer is always, with the innovations that we have been 

able to achieve in this country, we’re going to have progress, innovation, and more jobs than we’ve ever had before. 

But we’ve got to be able to figure out how to say that in a way 

that is helping people see that, understand that, and know that 

they’re going to be OK, because until we can answer that question, 

‘‘You know what? You’re going to be OK, and here’s how,’’ there is 

going to be an uncertainty, and it’s going to be an unsettling part 

of people’s lives and families. 

So we need help in being able to answer that question because 

the answer isn’t, ‘‘There is going to be less,’’ the answer is, ‘‘There 

is going to be more, and we’re going to create more jobs as a result.’’ The secondary impacts are going to be phenomenal, but how 

do we make sure that we can articulate it to a very uncertain 

American populace going forward? I’m excited about the future that 

we have here. 

Mr. Spear, one of the questions I have for you, though, is yesterday I had a hearing with the National Laboratory system, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, it’s in Denver, and some of the 

other laboratory systems around the country, and we talked about 

the 11 million miles of high resolution data that fleet partners 

across the country have been able to help work with them and provide them. 

How do we get the information we need using some of the national assets we have, like the labs and others, to really move forVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
49 

ward on a system of autonomous vehicles and the information, the 

safety information, we need to make this work? 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I alluded to it a bit in my testimony, and I used 

FCC as a primary example. It’s not just DOT and NHTSA, it’s 

FCC, it’s DHS on cyber, it’s also EPA on emissions. There are a 

whole host of benefactor agencies at the Federal level that really 

need to be more squarely at the table on this, labs included. We 

work a lot with DoD, not just on cyber, but logistics and testing. 

There are a lot of good things that can be done on military bases 

to advance this technology as they can in states and localities 

where they have proving grounds. 

So we don’t discriminate between either one of them, but we welcome everybody to the table because I think the more inclusivity 

that you have, the more robust this platform is going to be and 

easier to understand, not only from a legislative point of view, but 

from a regulatory point of view. 

So I think the inclusivity of the labs and the agencies, not just 

DOT, need to be squarely at the table and drive the outcome, and 

if the legislation can speak to that, I think that would be a very 

good thing. 

Senator GARDNER. Yes. Well, thank you very much for all of your 

time and testimony today. 

Colonel Hernandez, again thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to 

the panelists. Very engaging important discussion today. 

So, Mr. Spear, let me start with you and make sure I understand 

what I’m hearing today, is that you would be comfortable if we 

passed Federal legislation that only went to a Level 2 authority. In 

other words, what I mean by that is it limited any type of future 

technology for specifically to driver-assisted technology Level 2, and 

we didn’t open the door to a Level 5, a driverless technology, for 

commercial trucks. Is that correct? 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, Senator, let me stipulate that I’m not suggesting the Committee, you know, earmark at the Level 2 or 3. 

That’s the reality of where we see things for the foreseeable future, 

driver-assist; not Level 5, driverless. So if that’s acceptable, that reality, that, to us, is not a threat not only to driver displacement, 

but it’s actually a catalyst to a lot of beneficial things, to safety, 

productivity. 

But Levels 2 and 3 are really where we see the technology for 

the foreseeable future. If the legislation speaks to that, I mean, 

that’s a decision you all make, but we just don’t believe displacement or Level 5, no steering wheel, no pedals, is in the foreseeable 

future. So that’s kind of the world and the perspective that we’re 

approaching this. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. So if we were to limit it to Level 2 and 

Level 3 because you don’t see that in the foreseeable future as driverless, and we want to make sure that we’re addressing that worker displacement, but also the cybersecurity issues that we all have 

50 

concerns about and understanding it, as well as addressing the 

safety on the roads, you would be comfortable with that Federal 

legislation. 

Mr. SPEAR. Absolutely. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And, Mr. Hall, would you be comfortable 

with that Federal legislation if we were to limit it, particularly 

when it comes to commercial trucks, to just driver-assisted technology and understanding the evolution of that driver-assisted 

technology for commercial trucks? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I certainly would be. I would be happy to see 

that type of limitation on it. But by the same token, I also think 

that we have to address the many safety concerns before we make 

any of these changes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And so when you talk about the many 

safety concerns, that is including the worker safety concerns as 

well as the discussion we’ve had today, correct? 

Mr. HALL. Correct. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. OK. So let me just say this is an important discussion, and I think for all of us, the challenge is going to 

be how we balance the emergence of this new technology that, Mr. 

Spear, you said is happening, there’s a demand for it, and it is 

going to happen whether we are part of this discussion or not. And 

then how we balance that with worker protections and worker 

placement because the last thing that—I can’t speak for all of my 

colleagues, but I would imagine is that worker displacement. I 

mean, it would harm our economy, it would harm our workers, it 

would harm our jobs. That’s not what we’re trying to do here. So 

there has to be a balance that we find. And that’s what I’m hoping 

everybody will come to the table and help us at a Federal level find 

that balance to work together to have not only the ability to embrace this new technology, but address the worker issue and worker displacement to make sure that does not happen. So do you 

think there is an ability to work together to do that, Mr. Hall and 

Mr. Spear? 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely. I think there’s an ability to do that. 

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, I do. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you. And so the reason why I am really excited and interested in this space is because 

there is a lot of work that is happening in Nevada right now, as 

you well know, with this new technology both for autonomous vehicles as well as for driver-assisted trucks. I think it is the future 

and we need to embrace it, but we need to put those guardrails in 

place for protections that we’ve all talked about today. 

I know just in Nevada, the Regional Transportation Commission 

of Washoe County right now is currently testing and taking data 

on autonomous bus that will move many of my constituents back 

and forth throughout the region. And anyone that’s followed this 

issue knows that autonomous vehicles and the future of transportation relies on technology and connectivity. That’s why I am excited to be able to be introducing legislation to promote smart cities 

and communities. 

My bill will ensure that the Federal Government provides the 

seed money for public-private partnerships to implement integrated 

transportation systems in cities and rural communities throughout 

51 

the country. My colleague, Senator Burr, is lead sponsor on this. 

I’m very excited to work with him. That is our future, the Internet 

connectivity of things, and I want to make sure we’re in that space 

of that innovation. 

I think we can address the security issues, Ms. Hersman, that 

you’ve talked about, and the safety on our roads, Mr. Hernandez, 

as well, but at the same time, make sure we’re training that workforce for the future, we’re involving them in this discussion when 

we’re talking about the new technology. 

So thank you for the conversations today. I really appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The reason you’re experiencing some redundance in the questions 

that are coming is that we have about 50 percent of the members 

of this Committee are also on the Committee called the Environment and Public Works Committee, and so we find ourselves having to go back and forth, and it’s very difficult. 

The question that was asked—and, Mr. Clarke, let me first of all 

say how much we enjoy you as citizens of my city of Tulsa. And 

I’ve been in your operation many times, and it’s a great benefit to 

us, and I appreciate your presence and all the contributions you’ve 

made to our local communities very much. 

When you were asked by Senator Wicker some things I think are 

kind of interesting, that is, where are we—now, if it’s a difficult 

question to answer, I’ll only ask you and not the rest of you, but 

the rest of you, there’s an assumption by the American people that 

we’re always number one, we’re always the first there, and I know 

I served as Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

We know that there are many countries out there that are developing missile technology and other things that we’re really not always number one. But in this, this is something that’s new, and 

I’d like to know if it’s—I think it’s appropriate to ask each one of 

you, where are we right now in terms of other countries? We’ve 

heard Germany, Japan, China, other countries that are advancing. 

Where are we in the midst right now? 

You’ve already answered that, Mr. Clarke, but some of the rest 

of you. 

Ms. HERSMAN. When it comes to fatalities, we’re trailing. The 

rest of the industrialized countries have made more progress in the 

last 2 decades—— 

Senator INHOFE. No, no, I’m talking about this technology, the 

subject of this meeting today, where we are. 

Ms. HERSMAN. Right. So the other countries have made more 

progress, and some of that is because they have embraced technology. So things like automatic emergency braking, not required 

here on trucks. Looking at that in Europe, so they have that in Europe. When we look at automated enforcement, again, other countries are embracing some of these technologies at a more rapid clip 

than the United States. 

52 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Anybody else, any thoughts on that? That 

explains the European. And anything else? I’d like to know because 

we get asked these questions. What are the other countries doing? 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, we do benchmarks, Senator, with what our colleagues in Europe are doing. We think the proving grounds and the 

development at the local and state level here in the United States 

is a bit more advanced. And I think that’s in large part to the environment. We’re seeing multiple states and communities stepping 

up to really attract innovators to their state and cities. 

So I think smart cities were mentioned as well. We’re creating 

those environments where technology can be tested in a safe way. 

That’s a good thing. And I think those things, those investments, 

are going to accelerate the adoption of the technology. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s fine. I understand that. Now, when Senator Markey asked the question, it was kind of presumed that this 

mass exodus of jobs in America, and so it’s a difficult question for 

you just to answer yes or no to. So I guess I would like to have 

a comment from each one of you because I’ve heard from this Committee that there are some arguments that we’re actually going to 

be employing more people, we’re getting into other technology. But 

how do you see us? And when this washes out, are we going to 

have the massive job declines that were kind of assumed in the 

question that was asked you? Would you comment to that? 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. I think I struggled with that straightforward question just because I start thinking about the number of 

lives that we’ve lost on our roadways and our highways and how 

to reduce that. And then just that I’m not the subject matter expert 

on that key point, but primarily driven by our goal to get to zero 

and what that will look like. 

I will tell you from a law enforcement perspective, I’ve been involved for 30 years, like the Senator said, and every time we get 

more technology, it seems—it definitely seems to take more people 

than less to manage those technology systems. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Any other comments on that? 

Mr. Spear? 

Mr. SPEAR. I would say that, you know, the type of job description that we’re going to see in the next 20 years for drivers and 

technicians is arguably going to make, you know, these employees 

more marketable. They’re going to be better skilled. They’re going 

to be better trained. Employers are going to be investing a lot more 

in their capabilities to make certain that this equipment is up and 

running and done in a safe way. So we’re already facing a shortage. 

The reason I answered no to that is because we simply don’t believe that this is a displacement issue. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Yes. Well, from your perspective, the last 

thing I wanted to ask is, do you believe that heavy trucks should 

be included in the drafting of the legislation? 

Mr. SPEAR. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Does anyone not believe that, that want to 

speak out on that issue? 

Mr. HALL. I don’t believe that it should be part of this current 

legislation because—and I don’t want to oversimplify this, but, you 

know, all the discussion has been about passenger vehicles, and I 

53 

think we have to recognize that there is a vast difference between 

a 4,000-pound car and an 80,000-pound vehicle. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, you made that point, and I appreciate that 

very much. Do the other three of you somewhat agree with—mostly 

agree with Mr. Spear? 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Hassan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 

you and Senator Peters for all your work on this issue. 

And thank you to the panelists for being here today. 

There is no doubt that automated vehicles have tremendous potential to save lives and reduce the nearly 4,000 deaths caused by 

large truck accidents each year and the over 30,000 annual vehicle 

fatalities on our nation’s highways. But what’s less clear to me, and 

I think what you’re hearing some questions about, is how we can 

guard against potential harms of this technology from in- and outof-state actors who are looking to harm us. I don’t want to trade 

one set of harms for another. 

And I will tell you, I spent some of my homework period visiting 

summer camps in New Hampshire, and I was visiting one a couple 

of weeks ago, and it was for a group of adolescents. And they wanted to know what a Senator does. And I talked a little bit about the 

work of this Committee and said that this Committee had jurisdiction over automated vehicles, for instance, some legislation around 

it, and described what the future technology looks like. And within 

seconds there were kids, 13, 14 years old, raising their hands 

going, ‘‘Do you know how easy it would be to hack those?’’ And 

since they’re the digital natives among us, I tend to listen to young 

people when they talk to us about technology. 

So I am very concerned that we’re all assuming that there are 

going to be levels of cybersecurity built into this technology when, 

to Senator Markey’s point, we’ve seen in all various industry sectors that sometimes we think about cybersecurity after the harm 

is done. And given the lives at stake and the potential of out-ofstate actors who want to use vehicles now for a different purpose, 

I am very concerned that we get the cybersecurity right at the 

frontend and not wait for something bad to happen. 

We also know that there are critical thinking components to operating a vehicle that I’m not sure translate to automated machinery just yet, which I think is why we’re seeing the different levels 

of automation described in this legislation. 

But to all of you, if trucks are added to this bill, what more could 

be done beyond the bill to guard against potential cybersecurity 

risks of automation? 

Colonel HERNANDEZ. I’m not a cybersecurity expert, but I would 

just say that it makes a lot more sense to me to make sure that 

it’s incorporated so that autonomous vehicles are secure, whether 

it’s a car or a commercial vehicle. 

54 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Clarke. 

Mr. CLARKE. Actually, Senator, a great question and great topic. 

It is—this whole issue around cybersecurity is an immediate issue 

and it is an issue now in our industry. Both Navistar as well as 

all of my competitors and the people in the industry currently have 

some number of connected vehicles. Probably in the neighborhood 

of 40 percent of the vehicles that are on the road today are connected telematically. And we do different things. We offer services. 

We provide updates to some of the control software. So this is an 

immediate need for us today. 

I would say the recognition of these needs has energized our industry to work together like few things that I have seen. We are 

committed to get it right, and we will not go to market nor test 

without the proper—without the proper safeguards. We welcome 

the oversight of the regulatory bodies in that particular space. We 

would say it is a rapidly changing area. We don’t believe that the 

right thing is to mandate the technology, but certainly we stand 

ready and willing to participate in the regulatory process to provide 

the right safeguards. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, and because my time is running low, I’ll 

ask the rest of the group to address it, but just would it make 

sense to have a set of standards that everybody had to meet in 

place? 

Ms. Hersman? 

Mr. SPEAR. Senator, I think that’s what we’re trying to work toward even without legislation. The commercial sector as well as the 

automotive ISAC, which is up and running for a couple years now, 

really developing protocols that are seamless across both autos and 

commercial vehicles, and I think it really, you know, speaks to why 

trucks being part of this legislation is important, so that you get 

that seamless protocol. 

Senator HASSAN. Ms. Hersman? 

Ms. HERSMAN. I would say there were earlier questions about the 

voluntary nature of what’s going on now. This is exactly why this 

body needs to get involved. If we don’t like what’s happening out 

there, it’s because people don’t feel like they have the authority or 

the direction. And I think it’s really important for you all to set at 

least some of those high bars, set that floor and say where you 

want folks to go. They can figure out how to do it. But we don’t 

have anything now. And so it is a bit of the Wild West out there, 

and there needs to be a sheriff. And I think the opportunity to do 

that is through having these conversations and this legislation, not 

putting it off. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. And with the Chair’s indulgence, 

Mr. Hall, quickly. 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely I think there needs to be regulations, and 

I think there needs to be strong regulation, because while there are 

certainly reputable companies, including people who are represented here in this hearing today, there are bad actors out there, 

and we have repeatedly seen that, where, you know, with the 

Volkswagen scandal. If that happens with cybersecurity, we have 

got a huge problem. And I guess the thing that I see is perhaps, 

55 

as they say in West Virginia, we’ve got to make sure we’re not getting the cart before the horse. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. We need to ensure the stability and safety of these vehicles before we start rolling them out and approving legislation to 

put them on the road. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you. 

And thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I’ll put some 

questions into the record about workforce training. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hassan. 

Senator Capito. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

the hearing. I haven’t been in the entire time, but you’ve got a 

great panel because you’ve got two West Virginians on the panel, 

Ms. Hersman and Mr. Hall. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CAPITO. So I know we’re in good hands. 

I just recently returned from a trip to Israel, and when the question was asked, ‘‘What countries are really at the cutting edge?’’ 

they talked a lot in Israel about self-driving and automated vehicles, and I think they have—they have a very small, very flat country as well, but I think they’re really working on the technologies 

there. So I wanted to bring that up. 

I have a question, and it may be that I’m off kind of on how 

these things really work. So, Mr. Clarke, this is directed at you. We 

live in a state that has spotty connectivity, even on our main arteries, through even our wireless on our interstates, you know, it cuts 

in and out. And I have some concerns that if we move forward on 

this or as the technology moves forward, how much connectivity in 

all the different areas plays into being able to run this efficiently 

and safely. Could you speak to that, please? 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The basic 

autonomous system on a vehicle is intended to, in fact, drive in a 

very autonomous way. It does not have to be a connected vehicle 

to be an autonomous vehicle. It operates with a very detailed 3D 

map. It’s looking and comparing using cameras and LIDAR detectors and making constant comparisons to what’s in its memory, 

looking for things that aren’t there, and then making decisions, are 

those objects moving or are those objects fixed? And then what decisions should be taken, not the least of which is, ‘‘I think I don’t 

understand, I’m just going to pull over.’’ 

And so even in a non-connected environment, the vehicles can 

operate autonomously. Their safety efficacy is significantly enhanced when they do operate in a connected fashion, either connected to other vehicles or connected to portions of the infrastructure, or, in many cases, for our testing purposes, connected back to 

us, so that we can collect that data that can be used by regulators 

and analyzed for future purposes. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, you mentioned in your previous question 

that 40 percent of your trucks were connected telematically. What 

is—when you say ‘‘telematically,’’ what are we—— 

56 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. So I’d like you think about it that the truck 

itself has a cell phone, you know, and like every couple of seconds, 

it’s sending us a message on the condition of all the mechanical 

systems on the vehicle. 

Senator CAPITO. OK. So through the wireless. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Hall, on the concerns about the workforce impacts, obviously 

in West Virginia, we have a lot of trucker drivers. It’s a great occupation. I notice as we’re looking at the different levels, in the, I 

don’t know, Level 1 to Level 4, there is somebody in the car that’s 

being—or in the truck. But I started thinking, so why is Mr. Hall 

worried about if you’re going to have a Teamster in the truck anyway? Do you envision that it’s a lower paying, lower type job, it 

doesn’t have maybe the same beginning salaries that somebody 

who’s a member of the Teamsters might have? I mean, is that your 

concern? Because it looks as though, at least from the very beginning, and except in very urban situations, there is somebody in the 

vehicle. 

Mr. HALL. Well, that’s obviously one of my concerns. I mean, 

first, yes, we don’t want to see—just, you know, it has been mentioned here today that some comparison to we still have pilots in 

airplanes even though they’re very much automated. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. HALL. And so certainly it’s a concern of ours because people 

make a good living doing that. But also our concern is the safety 

of the drivers as well as the general public in saying that it 

shouldn’t be—we don’t believe that you should just include 80,000- 

pound trucks without further study. I mean, I don’t think you can 

say because we’ve been talking about automobiles that then it just 

makes sense. 

I mean, it’s no more than—you know, I bought my grandson a 

BB gun, but I don’t think that means that I should give him a 

high-powered rifle because he’s learned to shoot a BB gun. We need 

to make sure that we’re taking the time to look at some of the aspects that are so much different about trucks than they are automobiles. 

But you are right. I mean, one of my concerns is that there be 

regulations so that we don’t have those bad actors who—I mean, 

most of the companies that we deal with are up front and do the 

right thing. We don’t want bad actors who are putting people on 

the road at the low end, the lowest cost, at the risk of safety for 

the general public. 

Senator CAPITO. OK. You know, it’s hard to imagine living in the 

terrain that we live in that an autonomous vehicle—there are certain places I am not getting in an autonomous vehicle to go up to 

my house, I can tell you that. It’s a pretty windy, windy road. So 

there are lots of areas where this is not going to work. 

But, Ms. Hersman, let’s just take I–81. I don’t know what the 

percentage of truck traffic is on that piece of highway, but it’s enormous. How do you see this technology evolving in terms of safety 

on a very crowded highway like that that’s pretty high speed? 

Ms. HERSMAN. So I think that’s a great example because that’s 

exactly the kind of corridor where I think this technology could 

57 

work the best: very predictable, repeatable, you’ve got good coverage, you’ve mapped it out, it’s not unknown. And those are the 

kinds of spaces where I think vehicles can talk to each other. It’s 

a very controlled environment. You’ve got widely spaced lanes. 

You’ve got shoulders where people can pull over. That environment 

I think is probably one of the spaces where we’re talking about 

using technology like this first. 

It could control speeds. I’m sure if you drive on 81, there are 

some speed racers on that road. In addition to it being a truck 

alley, there are a lot of people moving really quickly. We can look 

at a lot of safety issues that can be addressed through this technology, traffic flow management, but safety is the first and most 

important thing. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Duckworth. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to quickly recognize our two Illinois natives. So good 

panel. Ms. Hersman and Mr. Clarke, welcome to the panel. 

And just briefly touching on what Mr. Hall just said, I think the 

name ‘‘Captain Sully Sullenberger’’ and the ‘‘Miracle on the Hudson’’ is a great example of the importance of a human being decisionmaker at the controls of any type of large vehicle. 

With the advent of Level 3, 4, and 5 technologies, I think we face 

a truly game-changing opportunity and associated challenges as 

well. You know, in my own lifetime, there have been few technologies with more potential to improve the mobility and independence for individuals with disabilities than autonomous vehicles. It 

would be freeing for those with visual impairments, for those that 

are unable to drive, to be able to actually leave their homes and 

gain mobility. Clearly, the potential to greatly reduce the 30,000 

annual roadway fatalities is also truly exciting. I do know that we 

should expect growing pains and unintended consequences. 

What I’d like to focus my discussion on is on how autonomous 

vehicles would challenge our existing transportation infrastructure 

and what that means for our local municipalities and states, and 

also the future of labor. 

So, Mr. Clarke, what existing and future infrastructure considerations should manufacturers take into account when designing vehicles at Level 3 and above? 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. That’s a great question, Senator, and it certainly reflects your understanding that commercial vehicles actually operate in a system or an environment that includes the infrastructure, things such as not just the highways, but entrants and 

exits, you know, toll plazas, even something as simple as, where 

can a vehicle pull over during an application? 

What’s exciting about this opportunity is that we can concurrently discover, as we’re validating the technologies, those cost effective or the most cost-effective methods to get at what will ultimately be some infrastructure needs. As the point has already been 

58 

made, autonomous vehicles, even the most sophisticated, if everything were perfect, are probably just not suited to some roads in 

America or some circumstances, but, you know, they are suited to 

a number of other places as well. Things like, you know, we’ve already talked about vehicle-to-vehicle communications, but we can 

talk about vehicle-to-infrastructure communication where the road 

itself—OK?—and its condition can talk to the vehicle for incidents 

that maybe are miles and miles in advance. 

And last but not least, look, these technologies, you would only 

think of deploying these technologies in the immediate term in a 

place where the vehicle always has available to it the ability to pull 

itself over and stop, which kind of dictates it’s riding in the righthand lane. And so now we have to reassess the capacity of, you 

know, that particular thoroughfare because all of the trucks will be 

in the right-hand lane. They will be traffic and speed controlled, 

but it always needs the ability to pull itself off. Or in the case of 

platooning, which we talked about previously, ‘‘decel’’ lanes on freeways or limited access highways may need to be extended so that 

entire pelotons of vehicles could pull over and still leave room for 

passenger vehicles to navigate their way off the highway as well. 

And then last but not least, another very simple example would 

be the vehicle needs to be driven once it gets off the highway, and 

perhaps at that point in time, there will be the need for marshalling areas or cross-docking facilities or the ability to pull the vehicle over very close to an entrance or an exit to make the right inspections, to create the right certifications, so that we know that 

the vehicle is capable of performing the next challenge, so to speak, 

in its task. 

So the opportunity to bring this technology in a very controlled 

manner for the purpose of developing data that will fuel regulations and infrastructure research is the exact opportunity we look 

forward to. I think I speak for our entire industry. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. And I think it’s important to 

talk about the point beyond getting off of the interstate, off of the 

major roadways as well, because in many of our municipalities, the 

roads through cities and towns into the industrial areas, into those 

loading docks, are, you know, 1960s and 1970s era, very narrow. 

There is simply—there is nothing to replace a human being to negotiate through those. 

And, Ms. Hersman, I think everyone agrees that the safety potential of AV technology is enormous. And from a safety perspective, could you speak to this infrastructure challenge for states and 

municipalities in terms of accommodating future AV technologies? 

Ms. HERSMAN. I think on this issue it’s really important for 

states and municipalities, oversight agencies, licensing agencies, all 

of them need to have a seat at the table. When we look at what’s 

happening now, it’s happening in controlled environments. They 

need to be notified of testing that’s going on in their states so they 

know how to respond. But there may also be changes in design that 

we need to do going forward. 

We talked about V2I, vehicle-to-infrastructure. We have a lot of 

grade crossings in Illinois. That’s a great opportunity to kind of 

connect industries. And so how do we keep from having grade 

crossing fatalities? Likewise, we’ve seen pedestrian and cyclist faVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
59 

talities going up very significantly. How do we ensure that we’re 

thinking about all road users and not just—we’re talking about 

trucks and cars today, but there are a lot of other fatalities that 

occur on our roadways. 

I think states and municipalities have to be at the table, whether 

we’re talking about lane markings and how we have systems that 

interact with each other, or about the rules of the road that we set. 

No one has really talked about consumer education. One of the 

biggest challenges that we have is, how do people understand how 

these vehicles are behaving? Whether it’s a large truck or whether 

it’s a car, really important to bring people in the loop, and I think 

the state and local leaders have a role in that. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

Senator Cantwell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 

this hearing. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Clarke, you know, obviously the SuperTruck 

program, which is both about moving forward, you know, more 

from an efficiency perspective. I know PACCAR, in our state, was 

awarded one of the DOE for developing more fuel-efficient engines. 

How do you see these two things working together in the challenges we face on competitiveness of moving U.S. products and 

keeping costs down? How is increasing fuel efficiency and automation going hand-in-hand? 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes, Senator, thank you so much. Boy, I couldn’t 

have asked for a better setup. You know, all of the major truck 

manufacturers in America participated in the DOE SuperTruck 

program. And as a program itself, the SuperTruck program, how 

it was managed, it was managed in an outstanding way that created the very technologies that we’re putting on our vehicles today 

to improve not only their efficiency and operation and how clean 

they are in the environment, OK, but it really gave us a test bed 

to test many of these connected technologies and many of the— 

well, for instance, many of these ADAS technologies that, you 

know, are, in fact, the basis of autonomous vehicles going forward. 

So, for instance, in our SuperTruck program, we had such a successful experience with collision mitigation and avoidance that in 

the middle of the program, we decided to put it on our brand-new 

tractor, called the LT, and we made it standard. So collision mitigation is standard. You can delete the option if you so choose, but 

surprising to us, the take rate on that has been 35 percent. And, 

in fact, those vehicles who are equipped with collision mitigation 

and mitigation style braking, already proven that they would suggest 24 percent reduction in those type of accidents, the very accidents that it was intended, you know, to avoid. 

So it does—it did give us confidence to move forward with that 

technology in a test platform where we could do it outside of the 

commercial venue. And I would highlight that the SuperTrucks 

were all tested on highways. And so we were able to test it with— 

60 

in multiple customer environments all across the United States, 

and, again, it gave us this rapid validation and feedback that let 

us do something really good, not just commercially for us, but, you 

know, we think for the drivers as well. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, it’s kind of hand-in-glove, right? 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. I mean, it’s not just, you know, are you going 

to have automated trucks? It’s, what are the efficiencies you are 

going to drive into trucks for reducing costs? And when we see this 

from the aerospace industry, huge wins in the marketplace because 

the customer wants a more fuel-efficient plane. And I would just 

assume driving down the cost in these fuel areas and efficiency 

areas also give you a more competitive advantage when you’re out 

there marketing cost of moving product. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes, Senator. This is a—you know, ours is a highly 

regulated business environment, you know, that is aimed at safety, 

efficiency, and, you know, basically clean products in the environment. There are no better safety regulators in the world than 

NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. We 

have historically worked together to not only bring products to the 

market that improve safety, reduce operating costs, but create a 

cleaner environment. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

letting me have another round here. I appreciate your indulgence. 

And again thank you to our witnesses here today. 

Ms. Hersman, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety have 

expressed concerns to my office about including trucks in this legislation, and they have recommended several ways that Congress, 

the DOT, NHTSA, FMCSA can ensure safety of highly automated 

trucks. So they have a little different perspective or at least are 

raising a number of I think are important issues. And I would certainly welcome your thoughts on some of the issues that they have 

raised. 

The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety believe that automated trucks that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards should not be subject to exemptions. Would you agree 

with that? 

Ms. HERSMAN. Are you talking about for testing environments? 

I think that if we have very specific geofenced testing environments, we want to think about how we’re—what we’re testing, 

what equipment we’re testing. But I do think if they’re operating 

out on the roads with the public, they need to be subjected to the 

same standards as other vehicles out there. 

Senator PETERS. So I guess that’s in agreement with that stand. 

Ms. HERSMAN. Yes. But I would say, you know, certainly when 

we look at test environments, I mean, we talked about a situation 

where we had a unique test, and they created specific parameters 

around it. So I would say we have to sometimes put technologies 

and systems out there if we’re testing them to understand what it’s 

like in the real world. It’s important not to say we wouldn’t want 

61 

to allow anything, but I think we have to have major controls 

around those things. 

Senator PETERS. Fair enough. Have you considered what would 

be an appropriate number of exemptions for highly automated 

trucks going forward? 

Ms. HERSMAN. I think that it’s possible. I know the Committee 

has a number. And I really think you could think about a pro rata 

share based on the number of vehicles that are out there, passenger vehicles versus commercial vehicles. I think certainly it’s in 

the purview of the Committee to put that out there. But what we’re 

talking about as far as fully automated vehicles, we’re just not seeing those numbers now. 

Senator PETERS. Well, under current law, current law allows 

2,500. Would 2,500 be sufficient for trucks? And I guess my understanding is there are about 300,000 produced in the country versus 

17 million automobiles. Is 2,500 sufficient? 

Ms. HERSMAN. I’m not sure that 2,500 is the right number. I 

might defer to some of my colleagues who have more real experience with respect to putting vehicles out on the roads. But I think 

it’s really important for this Committee to engage in this issue and 

set some guidelines and some escalation for how that could occur 

in a thoughtful way because right now there are none. 

Senator PETERS. Right. We allow the 2,500 under current, but if 

we change that, we obviously need some thoughtful consideration 

of that, and get some data and evidence to determine that. I appreciate that answer. 

The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety also believe that 

automated trucks must have an operator with a valid commercial 

driver’s license while in the vehicle at all times, and are advocating 

for the Secretary to issue a standard for driver engagement. Does 

the National Safety Council have recommendations for ensuring 

that an operator is behind the wheel? 

Ms. HERSMAN. So I would say—you’re asking me about other 

folks’ recommendations? I can absolutely share with you what some 

of our recommendations are. 

Senator PETERS. Is that one of your recommendations? 

Ms. HERSMAN. I think for us, we do feel, depending on the level 

of automation, there absolutely needs to be a qualified driver behind the wheel. And one of the things that we haven’t talked about 

that this issue goes to, that the Advocates are raising, is I know 

we talked about displacement and training programs, but I think 

what we really need to talk about are training programs going forward, making sure that there are opportunities for people to be 

qualified on advanced technologies. 

I held a commercial driver’s license. There are endorsements for 

those licenses, whether it’s air brakes, school bus, passenger endorsements. I think it’s important for us to think through technology as we advance. How do we train and qualify people for advanced technology? Because these systems are going to be complex 

and it’s going to require a different set of skills. 

Senator PETERS. Well, that’s actually related to I think my next 

question, so I think you’re ahead of it, because the Advocates raise 

concerns about driver training, as you just expressed, and they believe that drivers operating a highly automated truck must have 

62 

additional endorsement on their CDL to ensure that they have 

been properly trained to monitor and understand the operating design domain of the vehicle, and if need be, take over the control of 

that highly automated truck. They believe this training should include a minimum number of hours behind the wheel, and it sounds 

as if that’s the direction that you’re going to. That’s something we 

need to think through. 

Ms. HERSMAN. I absolutely think as long as human beings are 

engaged, we have to make sure that we do it safely. I know everyone is talking about Levels 2, 3, 4, 5, but I would posit that one 

of the most dangerous environments are when a human being and 

the vehicle are sharing control. And how we handle those handoffs 

and how we structure the notifications, the warnings, and the 

training are very important. This is where we’ve seen in the aviation industry mode confusion, overreliance on automation. These 

are really important conversations for us to have, even about Levels 2 and 3, before we get to 4 and 5. It’s going to be a very messy 

environment, and we need to talk about those things. 

Senator PETERS. Yes, absolutely. I agree. 

And just one final point, Mr. Chairman. 

They are also suggesting that motor carriers using highly automated trucks should be required to apply for additional operating 

authority. Has the National Safety Council—have you considered 

that issue? 

Ms. HERSMAN. I think it’s important that they apply for operating authority as they’re required to do so today. I think it’s really 

important for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to 

identify what that means. And they need to be part of the conversation with respect to vehicle standards that NHTSA is responsible for, but operations are completely within their purview. And 

I think, as we’re saying, it’s a new world out there. Everybody has 

got to come along and identify what that means. 

Senator PETERS. Right. Well, I appreciate those answers. And it’s 

clear we need to do a whole lot more thinking about this. And I 

appreciate your response. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

And again thanks to our panel today. It has been great conversation and discussion, and I think it has shed a lot of light on important issues as we try and shape our bill, and we’ve been working, 

as I said, Senator Peters and I, and Senator Nelson and others on 

this Committee, for some time and trying to craft a bill that really 

does enable the technology to move forward and with maximum 

emphasis on safety. And so we’re trying to figure out how to thread 

that needle. 

I would argue that it makes sense not to have two safety standards out there, one for trucks and one for automobiles, and that as 

we think about these things, we want to make sure that we’re providing the safest environment for all motorists on the highways, 

but that’s a point that we continue to talk about in terms of the 

final bill that we end up filing. So we’ve got a draft out there. I 

know many of you have looked at it, and we welcome your thoughts 

and your input and certainly the testimony this morning and the 

responses to the questions have been very, very helpful in that regard. 

63 

And I would simply say for members of the Committee who have 

questions for the record, to submit those. And if we could have all 

of you respond within a two-week time period, it would be very appreciated. And we’ll make all that part of the hearing record. So 

thank you again for being here. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65) 

A P P E N D I X 

Op-Ed Contributor—September 12, 2017/05:00 am 

SELF-DRIVING TRUCK TECHNOLOGY IS THE ANSWER TO SAFER ROADS

Gary Shapiro 

Over a century ago, trains moved freight across our Nation. When technology 

changed and cabooses no longer played a role in train safety, railmen fought for 

laws to require cabooses to be manned with unnecessary workers. This blip in our 

history of fully embracing innovation is instructive for our current debates over the 

shift to self-driving vehicles—technology that will save millions of lives and empower the elderly and people with disabilities. 

Today, trains and trucks compete to move freight. But trucking is one of the most 

dangerous jobs in America. In 2015, 745 drivers died on the road. This is roughly 

one-quarter of all workplace fatalities—more than any other industry. It comes as 

no surprise, then, that the trucking industry has struggled to hire drivers in recent 

years. The American Trucking Association says there were 48,000 fewer drivers 

than available jobs in 2015. And for qualified, active drivers, this means longer and 

more frequent trips to fill the gaps. 

Self-driving trucks will transform American commerce while dramatically improving road safety, They will revolutionize transportation—and also make it less expensive—letting companies send goods over long distances without worrying about 

whether a driver has the stamina for yet another marathon drive. 

This week, the Senate Commerce Committee is hearing arguments on including 

self-driving trucks in self-driving legislation. It’s a tough question: There’s no denying that in the long term, self-driving trucks will change the role and responsibilities of truck drivers. However, this will be a generational shift, not an abrupt displacement of drivers, and in fact, will likely improve conditions for them. 

Simply resisting self-driving trucks to protect existing jobs overlooks big problems 

the trucking industry now faces. And self-driving trucks will reduce human error, 

increasing safety both for drivers and for the millions of Americans with whom they 

share the Nation’s highways. 

Safety issues aside, keeping self-driving trucks off the road in an effort to keep 

drivers employed obscures the deeper problem. Innovation will always disrupt the 

job market. Trying to stop the tide of technology never works, and the time and energy spent resisting it is a Sisyphean challenge. A wiser effort is to adapt. In nature 

and in business, the winners are not the strongest or fastest, but the quickest to 

adapt to change. Self-driving vehicles will create new industries and new kinds of 

jobs. We’ll need auto workers who know how to repair these new vehicles. We’ll 

need tech workers to develop and update the software that powers these cars. We’ll 

need construction workers to help prepare our infrastructure for the changes that 

self-driving technology will bring. 

The good news is that we’re already ahead of the curve. It will be several years— 

maybe decades—before we have the right legal and physical framework for total 

adoption to occur. We can—and must—use this time to prepare. 

This means staying technology-neutral—allowing all forms and models of a technology to emerge unhindered. Effective implementation, however, will require candid policy discussions. Government needs to act to ensure that legacy interests, including the different regulatory schemes for commercial and personal vehicles, do 

not wind up creating a patchwork of rules that delay the benefits of self-driving vehicles—benefits that include a potential 

30,000 American lives saved each year. 

It also means that the public and private sectors must work together to create 

the necessary physical framework—and that means helping workers get the right 

skills to get the job done. We must focus on technical skills and develop apprentice 

programs. We must invest in STEM education from an early age to prepare the next 

generation to take the jobs of the future. We must also help those who are already 

66 

in the workforce transition smoothly, teaching them how to navigate new technologies as older ones begin to retire. 

Self-driving vehicles are an exciting inevitability. Education—not protection—is 

the most effective way to deal with disruption. And in many industries, we should 

embrace technology to improve working conditions and make jobs easier. 

Let’s get to work laying down the necessary systems and structures so that this 

technology can emerge without delay. With the right laws and the right strategies, 

our roads will be safer, our transportation less expensive and our workforce stronger 

because of it. 

Gary Shapiro is President and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association. the 

U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, 

and author of the New York Times best-selling books, ‘‘Ninja Innovation: The Ten 

Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses’’ and ‘‘The Comeback’ 

How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream.’’ 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY

September 12, 2017 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, Chairman, 

Hon. BILL NELSON, Ranking Member, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

Thank you for convening tomorrow’s important hearing, ‘‘Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation’s Highways.’’ We are pleased that the Committee is considering the role of autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) 

and urge you to adopt a strong regulatory framework for their development and deployment. We respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing record. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) supports the development of 

automated vehicle technology because it has the potential to significantly reduce 

crashes, including those involving large trucks and buses. Advancing proven technological solutions is especially critical given that truck crashes have skyrocketed in 

recent years. In 2015, 4,067 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks. 

This is an increase of more than 4 percent from the previous year and a 20 percent 

increase from 2009. Additionally, in 2015, 116,000 people were injured in crashes 

involving large trucks. This is the highest number of injuries since 2004. Since 2009 

there has been a 57 percent increase in the number of people injured in large truck 

crashes. Moreover, 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. It is clear that this is a serious and growing public health problem that 

merits urgent attention. 

While Advocates sees great potential for fully autonomous vehicles, including 

CMVs, to be the catalyst for meaningful and lasting reductions in deaths and injuries, in the interim there are many effective technologies that could be implemented 

immediately. In 2015, Advocates filed a petition with the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) seeking the issuance of a rule to require forward 

collision avoidance and mitigation braking systems (F–CAM), also known as automatic emergency braking (AEB), on trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. The agency granted the petition in October of that year but, nearly two years later, no further regulatory action has been 

taken despite studies showing the potential to significantly reduce crashes, deaths 

and injuries. The agency should be required to expeditiously issue this rule. 

Additionally, Advocates has consistently supported the use of speed limiting devices for CMVs because high speed crashes involving CMVs are far more deadly 

than those that occur at lower speeds. As such, Advocates filed comments with the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and NHTSA urging that the 

devices, already installed on most CMVs, be turned on and set at a safe speed. 

These technologies are readily available and could be saving lives now if they were 

standard on every truck. Again, this is another truck safety rule that is needlessly 

languishing at the DOT. Both AEB and speed limiter technologies are already required as mandatory equipment on commercial vehicles in Europe. In fact, speed 

limiting technology has been required in the European Union for over two decades 

and AEB since 2012. The European Union is far ahead in providing a safer operating environment for CMVs, while the U.S. lags behind as deaths in truck-involved 

crashes skyrocket. 

67 

The emergence of experimental ACMVs and their interactions for the foreseeable 

future with conventional motor vehicles demand an enhanced level of Federal and 

state oversight to ensure public safety. It is imperative that CMVs be regulated. If 

not, the development and deployment of ACMVs will be subject to the ineffective 

and unenforceable voluntary guidelines developed by NHTSA for new vehicles. 

Moreover, the FMCSA has not even issued voluntary guidelines for the operating 

rules to govern the safety of ACMVs once on the road. The lack of proper oversight 

clearly will have a negative impact on public safety. Some experts predict that automated technology will be placed in commercial vehicles before light passenger vehicles. The potential for an 80,000 pound truck using unregulated and inadequately 

tested technology on public roads is a very real and dangerous scenario if these vehicles are only subject to voluntary guidelines. In addition, automated passenger 

carrying commercial motor vehicles that have the potential to carry as many as 53 

passengers will need additional comprehensive safeguards that will be unique to 

this mode of travel. 

In order to minimize major threats to the public and ensure that ACMVs are developed and deployed safely, they must be subject to the following essential provisions: 

• Each manufacturer of an ACMV must be required to submit a detailed safety 

assessment report that details the safety performance of automated driving systems and automated vehicles. Manufacturers should be required to promptly report to NHTSA all fatal, injury and property damage only crashes involving 

ACMVs. 

• ACMVs that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) should not be sold and they should not be subject to exemptions. Sales 

of CMVs in the United States do not nearly equal passenger vehicle sales and 

therefore exempting large numbers of CMVs from FMVSS is unnecessary for 

the development of ACMVs and will result in a potentially significant and unnecessary threat to public safety. 

• NHTSA must require that manufacturers of ACMVs meet a ‘‘functional safety 

standard’’ to guarantee the safety of ACMVs. This is a well-known process by 

which a product is tested to ensure that, as a whole, it will function safely and 

will prevent or mitigate defects or misuse which could lead to unsafe conditions. 

• Any safety defect involving the ACMV must be remedied before the ACMV is 

permitted to return to operation. The potential for defects to infect an entire 

fleet is heightened with AV technology. Therefore, manufacturers should be required to promptly determine if a defect affects an entire fleet. Those defects 

that are fleet-wide should result in an immediate suspension of operation of the 

entire fleet until the defect is remedied. 

• ACMVs must be required to meet a minimum cybersecurity standard that 

should be issued by the Secretary within 3 years of enactment of the legislation. 

• The Secretary should be required to establish a database for ACMVs that includes such information as the vehicle’s identification number; manufacturer, 

make, model and trim information; the level of automation of each automated 

driving system with which the vehicle is equipped; the operational design domain of each automated driving system with which the vehicle is equipped; and 

the Federal motor vehicle safety standard or standards, if any, from which the 

vehicle has been exempted. 

• In the near term, rulemakings should be considered for elements of ACMVs 

that may require performance standards including human machine interface, 

sensors and actuators and the need for software and cybersecurity standards. 

Standards for ACMVs should be required to be issued by specific deadlines set 

by Congress and before there is large scale deployment. 

• Manufacturers of ACMVs should be required to have in place a privacy plan 

before an ACMV is sold. 

• For the foreseeable future, regardless of their level of automation, ACMVs must 

have an operator with a valid commercial driver’s license in the vehicle at all 

times. Drivers will need to be alert to monitor not only the standard operations 

of the truck but also the automated system. Therefore, the Secretary must issue 

a standard for driver engagement. In addition, critical safety regulations administered by FMCSA such as those that apply to driver hours-of-service, licensing 

requirements, entry level training and medical qualifications must not be weakened. 

• Motor carriers using ACMVs should be required to apply for additional operating authority. 

68 

• Drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional endorsement on their 

CDL to ensure they have been properly trained to monitor and understand the 

operating design domain of the vehicle and, if need be, to operate an ACMV. 

This training should include a minimum number of hours of the behind-thewheel training. 

• FMCSA must consider the additional measures that will be needed to ensure 

that ACMVs respond to state and local law enforcement authorities and requirements, and what measures must be taken to properly evaluate an ACMV 

during roadside inspections. In particular, the safety impacts on passenger vehicle traffic of several large ACMVs platooning on roads and highways should be 

assessed. 

• NHTSA should be given imminent hazard authority to protect against potentially widespread catastrophic defects with ACMVs, and criminal penalties to 

ensure manufacturers do not willfully and knowingly put defective ACMVs into 

the marketplace. 

• NHTSA and FMCSA must be given additional resources, funding and personnel, in order to meet demands being placed on the agency due to the advent 

of AV technology. 

Without these necessary safety protections, truck drivers and those with whom 

they share the road are at risk. Advocates has always been a champion for technology and the advent of AV technology is no different. However, allowing technology to be deployed without adequate testing, oversight, and safety standards is 

a direct threat to the motoring public which is exacerbated by the sheer size and 

weights of large commercial motor vehicles. We look forward to working with the 

Committee to address these important issues and advance legislation that provides 

for the safe development and deployment of lifesaving technologies. 

Sincerely, 

JACQUELINE GILLAN, 

President Affairs. 

CATHERINE CHASE, 

Vice President of Governmental. 

TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA

September 12, 2017 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. BILL NELSON, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

Thank you for holding this important hearing on Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation’s Highways. As Congress and the administration develop Federal automated vehicle (AV) policy, it is critically important for this Committee to thoroughly understand how to balance the long-term safety benefits with 

the short-term challenges of testing and deployment. Today’s hearing focuses particularly on safety in the trucking industry, but this issue does not exist in a vacuum and it is important to include all commercial and non-commercial automated vehicles in any conversation about Federal AV policy. 

Transportation for America (T4A) is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders seeking smart, homegrown and locally driven transportation solutions. One of 

our initiatives, the Smart Cities Collaborative, is a learning and support network 

providing direct technical assistance to 16 leading edge cities advancing smart 

urban mobility strategies. We are working with cities as they develop model policies 

and launch pilot projects to test and learn about automated vehicles, shared mobility and data analytics. 

We are writing today to express our concerns with the Senate discussion draft of 

the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act. 

Along with the 16 cities of our Smart Cities Collaborative, T4A supports the deployment of automated vehicles and is pleased to see Congress supporting the effort 

of automakers to test and improve this technology. The best way to do this is to 

ensure that the testing is done with full transparency and in cooperation with the 

cities and states that own and manage the roads on which AVs are operating. UnVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
69 

fortunately, the staff discussion draft circulated last Friday fails to do that. It leaves 

cities and states out of the conversation and jeopardizes the safety of millions of 

Americans by allowing the vehicles to operate with little accountability or oversight. 

Currently, state and local governments have the authority to manage the operation of vehicles on their streets. This allows them to address concerns such as 

noise, congestion or safety. When it comes to automated vehicles, cities and states 

want to be able to manage their presence on their roads in the same way they manage all other vehicles, commercial and non-commercial, in order to ensure the safety 

of everyone using their system. 

The Senate discussion draft requires a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) from manufacturers that have introduced a highly automated vehicle into interstate commerce. They are required to submit information on vehicle safety, compliance with 

applicable laws, cybersecurity and crashworthiness. 

The SER serves as the framework for pre-empting local and state authorities. All 

states and local governments are prohibited from enacting or enforcing any laws related to any of the SER subject areas. 

None of us want to see a patchwork of regulations that stifle innovation, but the 

unified Federal framework in this case is a poisoned chalice: it provides almost zero 

mechanism for state or local governments to collaborate with those companies or 

hold them accountable for the safety of their vehicles or technology. The discussion 

draft strips these governments of the authority to manage the vehicles on their 

roadways and leaves them without the tools to deal with the problems that will 

surely arise during the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. 

We are also interested in seeing a Federal framework that allows the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Government to 

ensure the vehicles are safe for deployment. On its face, the safety report is a step 

in the right direction for managing these vehicles on our roads, but in reality it’s 

just an exercise: it prevents the Secretary of Transportation from taking any action 

based on a review of that SER data. If the safety report showed that a particular 

fleet of AVs was frequently blowing through red lights, even the Secretary of Transportation would have no recourse to require changes or to pull the cars from the 

road. 

The result of this framework is that no one—federal agents, state or local governments—has authority over these vehicles on the road other than the manufacturers. 

We have already seen automated vehicles struggle in cities like San Francisco, CA 

and Pittsburgh, PA with serious safety issues. This new technology is exciting and 

poised to have dramatic impacts on the safety of our streets in the long-term, but 

in the short-term, we need to give our cities and states—where these vehicles are 

operating—the authority to ensure that they’re operating safely and following all 

local traffic laws, and we need to give the Secretary of Transportation the authority 

to determine when a vehicle poses a threat to the American public and respond. 

Automated vehicle technology has the potential to provide aggregated information 

about how people and goods move through our streets, but without access to these 

data, city and state governments will be blind to the impacts of emerging transportation technologies. 

The SER provides additional data for local governments to view but with a few 

restrictions. The report allows for the redaction of trade secrets or confidential business information but the imprecise definition makes it unclear how much information will be hidden from public view. This provides only an impression of transparency while giving manufacturers a free pass to keep their operations a secret. 

The limited information provided to local governments is not adequate to inform 

them fully of what’s happening on their roads and make the appropriate changes 

to guarantee the safety and smooth introduction of this technology. For example, if 

a certain type of LIDAR system is incapable of reading a stop sign if vandalized 

with graffiti or confused by bike lanes if painted a certain shade of green, there is 

nothing that encourages or requires those testing AVs to share that information 

with those most able to address the problem. 

Understanding vehicle movement at the corridor level provides immense value for 

governments and citizens, and automated vehicles provide a new for communities 

to know what’s happening on their roads. Data on vehicle collisions and near misses 

allows cities to proactively redesign dangerous intersections and corridors to ensure 

safety for all street users. Real-time data on vehicle speeds, travel times and volumes has the potential to inform speed limits, manage congestion, uncover patterns 

of excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street redesign projects and ultimately 

improve productivity and quality of life. We need to ensure cities get the data they 

need to safety bring these vehicles onto their streets and eliminate any restrictions 

on what manufacturers can hide from them and the public. 

70 

Cities have long been the source of innovation in transportation policy and practice. With active deployments in cities such as Pittsburgh, PA, Tempe, AZ, and Boston, MA, cities continue to drive automated vehicle innovation and testing. These 

deployments are conducted in close partnership with automakers and private mobility providers allowing them leverage their respective knowledge and experience to 

understand the impacts of these technologies. Further, state departments of transportation manage the bulk of our transportation program. But in spite of the wealth 

of information cities and states have to share in order to assist with deployment, 

the discussion draft fails to require any inclusion of state or local representatives 

on a new Federal Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Safety Committee. 

All of these issues are exacerbated by the discussion draft’s provision to allow up 

to 50,000 vehicles per manufacturer to be deployed overnight, with up to 100,000 

over three years. We have already heard from Colonel Scott G. Hernandez, Chief 

of the Colorado State Patrol, on the time, expense and labor required to test just 

one truck in Colorado—even with the assets of robust data sharing, and communication and collaboration between the public and private sectors. We’re concerned about 

the ability to run even a second test of these vehicles, let alone hundreds and thousands of them at once. 

Protecting public safety is the fundamental role of government, but this discussion 

draft would set up a system that prevents federal, state and local authorities from 

supporting safe conditions for the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. It 

does not encourage the needed cooperation and transparency between the public and 

private sectors. It is hard to imagine how the deployment of AVs could be promoted 

effectively by hiding AV safety performance from the public and preventing the 

managers of our roadways and public safety officers from having a role in managing 

them. 

We encourage the Committee to make changes to address the concerns and to 

hold a hearing with city and state partners to receive their input. 

If you have any questions or need more information, you can contact our Director 

of Smart Cities, Russ Brooks at russ.brooks@t4america.org or (612) 460–8181. 

Sincerely, 

BETH OSBORNE, 

Interim Director, 

Transportation for America. 

TRUCK & ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Chicago, IL, September 12, 2017 

VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY 

Chairman JOHN THUNE, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Ranking Member BILL NELSON, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: AV START Act—Staff Discussion Draft 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, 

The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) applauds the hard work 

of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in developing 

the American Vision for Safer Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary 

Technologies Act (AV START Act). We support the creation of a Federal regulatory 

structure to ensure that the inevitable deployment of highly automated vehicles is 

implemented safely and reliably, and we appreciate your willingness to consider the 

input of the heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers that is reflected in the staff 

discussion draft of the bill. The AV START Act addresses critical aspects of the 

automated vehicle technologies that are emerging in passenger cars and heavy-duty 

commercial vehicles—technologies that show great promise in our common goal of 

improving motor vehicle safety. 

EMA represents the world’s leading manufacturers of commercial motor vehicles 

(greater than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, or GVWR). EMA member 

companies design and produce medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that are highly 

customized to perform a wide variety of commercial functions, including line-haul 

trucking, regional trucking, package delivery, refuse hauling, and construction. 

EMA members have a long history of being at the forefront of developing and deploying advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) that utilize automation technologies to assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle and avoiding a 

71 

crash. The automation technologies utilized in ADAS, such as anti-lock braking, 

electronic stability control, automatic emergency braking, and adaptive cruise control, serve as the building blocks for the highly automated driving systems that are 

addressed in the AV START Act. Existing and future automated vehicle technologies 

show great promise in minimizing the human error that leads to a vast majority of 

motor vehicle crashes, including those involving heavy-duty trucks. Reducing the potential error of the driver of an 80,000 pound over-the-road tractor-semitrailer combination vehicle is why EMA members are developing and deploying automated vehicle technologies. 

It is very important to note that the role of the commercial vehicle operator is 

much more expansive than that of a passenger car driver. A commercial vehicle operator is the face of their trucking business employer; conducts critical pre-trip vehicle inspections; ensures that the correct cargo is loaded and secured; manages and 

reports on the logistics of delivering the freight; and guards the vehicle and freight 

against theft. Accordingly, we anticipate that heavy duty commercial vehicles will always require an operator, albeit one assisted by automation. 

The AV START Act would establish a sound regulatory structure for the design 

and manufacture of highly automated vehicles under the purview of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Like passenger car manufacturers, EMA members have been certifying vehicles to comply with NHTSA’s Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) since soon after the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted in 1966. That longstanding nationwide framework provides heavy-duty manufacturers the regulatory certainty needed to efficiently supply compliant vehicles to their interstate fleet customers. Accordingly, we 

urge the Committee to maintain the Federal regulatory framework in the AV 

START Act for the design, construction and performance of highly automated vehicles, as exists with NHTSA’s current FMVSSs. To maintain NHTSA’s broad regulatory authority over the automation technologies in heavy-duty vehicles, the AV 

START Act also should keep commercial vehicles (over 10,000 pounds GVWR) in the 

definition of Highly Automated Vehicle. 

As proposed, the AV START Act would limit pre-production testing of highly automated vehicles to only manufacturers. However, each heavy-duty truck is highly 

customized by the manufacturer to meet the needs of the commercial customer’s 

particular trucking operation, and the process of developing and deploying new technologies in that business-to-business relationship requires that the manufacturer 

provide prototype vehicles for fleet customers to assess in real-world operation. In 

other words, a commercial fleet customer will not invest in a new technology before 

a thorough evaluation of a prototype vehicle to ensure the technology will function 

as expected—and return a profit. Such real-world prototype evaluation is performed 

by the fleet customer in close coordination with the truck manufacturer. Accordingly, the AV START Act should allow commercial vehicle fleets to test and evaluate 

highly automated heavy-duty vehicles along with the manufacturer. 

Since heavy-duty vehicles are developed, sold and operated in a commercial environment, we hope to be able to constructively engage with the NHTSA working 

group envisioned in the AV START Act to be responsible for automated driving education efforts. However, we believe that education efforts for the commercial vehicle 

sector are best addressed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

under its existing authority to regulate commercial driver licensing and training. 

We look forward to continuing to work with the Commerce Committee on the AV 

START Act—legislation that is crucial to the safe and efficient deployment of automated vehicle technologies in commercial motor vehicles. If you have any questions, 

or if there is any additional information we could provide, please do not hesitate 

to contact me at (312) 929–1972, or tblubaugh@emamail.org. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY BLUBAUGH, 

Executive Vice President. 

cc: Cherilyn Pascoe (Cherilyn Pascoe@commerce.senate.gov) 

STATEMENT OF PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

The promise of ‘‘self-driving’’ vehicles to improve road safety and mobility continues to generate debate about what the appropriate regulatory frame work for the 

testing and deployment of such vehicles. As automation of driving functions increases, some motor vehicle laws and regulations will need to be changed to accommodate the testing and deployment of self-driving vehicles. The Property Casualty 

Insurers Association (PCI) is pleased that the Committee continues to work diliVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
72 

gently to address policy issues related to the testing and deployment of automated 

vehicles. 

PCI is composed of nearly 1,000 member companies, representing the broadest 

cross section of insurers of any national trade association. PCI members write $202 

billion in annual premium, 35 percent of the Nation’s property casualty insurance. 

That figure includes more than 46 percent of the commercial auto insurance premium written in the United States. 

The increasing automation of the driving function is likely to bring significant 

change to the auto insurance industry. To adapt to these changes and support innovation in transportation, insurers will need to have access to data and information 

regarding vehicles with automated driving systems whether they are used for commercial or personal purposes. It is critical for insurers developing historical loss 

data and pricing for new insurance products in an evolving marketplace to have the 

ability to identify not only which vehicles have automated driving technology but 

also the type of technology used by each vehicle. 

Additionally, insurers need to have reasonable access to data for claims handling 

purposes. In many auto accidents, apportionment of liability is likely to hinge upon 

whether a human driver or the vehicle itself was in control and what actions either 

the driver or the vehicle did or did not take immediately prior to the loss event. 

Neither HR 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act that recently passed the House, nor draft 

legislation currently under development in the Senate address these data access 

issues directly. PCI strongly urges policymakers to ensure access to data for insurers in Federal law. Doing so is essential for prompt claims handling and could potentially avoid many liability disputes that could delay compensation to accident victims. While cybersecurity is a critical concern for automated vehicles, it is important 

that cybersecurity requirements do not block access to vehicle data by third parties, 

such as insurers. 

Testing requirements, guidelines and standards for use on public roads should set 

clear expectations for the public and provide clear compliance direction for technology developers and manufacturers. Modifications to existing auto safety laws and 

motor vehicle safety standards must be rare, and limited to only the highest levels 

(i.e., fully autonomous) of automated driving, and should clearly define the levels 

of automation to which the modification applies. Vehicles with automated driving 

systems will share the road and occasionally collide with human driven vehicles for 

many years to come. As such, PCI believes that exemptions to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) should not be permitted for crash protection 

standards. Clear and effectively enforced auto safety laws and vehicle standards can 

save lives on our roads today and, when applied to automated driving systems, foster public confidence that will ultimately determine if the technology realizes its potential. 

Insurers have valuable contributions to make to any advisory council that will 

make recommendations on automated vehicle policy, when the committees charge 

will involve cybersecurity, data sharing and safety. We recommend that insurer representation be specifically provided for in any such advisory committee being created. PCI is eager to participate on these advisory groups and work with all stake 

holders to establish a framework for sharing information that protects vehicle user 

privacy and the intellectual property rights of the manufacturers. 

Automated driving technology holds great promise for the future, and implementing clear policies that ensure that insurers have access to vehicle data on reasonable terms to efficiently handle claims, develop products and underwriting methods to support these innovations are an essential first step toward that future. PCI 

and its members look forward to working with legislators and regulators at the Federal and state level to establish a sound regulatory framework for automated driving. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND, ESQ., COUNSEL, SELFDRIVING COALITION FOR SAFER STREETS; AND PARTNER, VENABLE LLP 

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, on behalf of the Self-Driving Coalition 

for Safer Streets, I am honored to submit this written statement discussing the future of transportation innovation, including fully self-driving commercial vehicles. 

The Coalition, which was founded in April of last year by Ford Motor Company, 

Lyft, Uber, the Volvo Car Group, and Waymo (formerly Google’s self-driving car 

project), is focused on enabling the development and deployment of Level 4 and 

Level 5 fully self-driving vehicles, including light passenger vehicles and heavy duty 

trucks. 

73 

1See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/research-and-analysis/large-truck-crash-causation-stu 

dy-analysis-brief (Table 1). 2For statistics on the number of vehicles and vehicle registrations, see https://www 

.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/ 

html/table_01_11.html; https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2014/mv9.cfm. 

For information on the breakdown of trucking-related injuries and fatalities, see https:// 

crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812246. 3See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts2015. 4 Id. 

This cross-section of companies demonstrates the widespread interest in developing self-driving technology across different industry sectors—including technology, 

automotive, ridesharing, and commercial trucking. Despite their different backgrounds, the companies came together to form the Coalition because of their commitment to bring the tremendous potential safety benefits of self-driving vehicles to 

consumers in the safest and swiftest manner possible. As examples of their efforts, 

Waymo completed the world’s first fully driverless ride on public roads in Austin 

in October 2015 and has now driven more than 3 million miles on public roads, 

mostly on city streets; Lyft has set itself a public goal that half the rides on its platform will be in a self-driving vehicles by 2021; Ford intends to have a fully self-driving vehicle ‘‘for commercial application in mobility services in 2021; and Uber already is providing rides using its self-driving vehicles (with an operator behind the 

wheel) in Tempe, Arizona and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation stands at the 

intersection of the digital economy, the Internet of things, and, most importantly, 

consumer safety. This is a critical moment for the Committee as it wrestles with 

questions that will impact the future of transportation safety, mobility, and innovation for decades to come. On behalf of the Coalition, I thank the Committee Members and their staff for working with a wide array of automated vehicle technology 

stakeholders over the past several months to try to develop self-driving vehicle legislation. Over the course of this period, you have engaged in a thoughtful discussion 

over how to safely deploy self-driving technology, and we are grateful for the opportunity to provide input. 

The Coalition believes fully self-driving vehicles, whether light duty passenger or 

medium-to-heavy duty commercial vehicles, will play a key role in making our roads 

safer,improving mobility and maintaining U.S. leadership on innovation. Self-driving vehicles offer an opportunity to significantly increase safety, reduce congestion, 

and transform how people, goods, and services get from point A to B. Self-driving 

vehicles also hold the promise to enhance mobility for the disabled and elderly and 

improve transportation access and access to goods and services for underserved communities. 

Ultimately, safety is the driving force behind deploying self-driving technology. Although it has been often cited, it still bears repeating that 35,092 Americans died 

in motor vehicle crashes and 2.44 million were injured in 2015, and tragically, these 

numbers are growing. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(‘‘NHTSA’’) estimates a 10.4 percent increase in roadway fatalities in the first half 

of 2016. Since 94 percent of all crashes are the result of a human decision, fully 

self-driving vehicles are very likely to significantly reduce fatal traffic crashes because they remove human error from the driving process entirely. 

The same holds true in the trucking space. A staggering 87 percent of truck-related crashes are caused by human errors.1 Trucks are involved in a disproportionate share of crash fatalities, where trucks represent only 1 percent of registered 

vehicles and less than 6 percent of all miles traveled but are involved in almost 9 

percent of all crash fatalities.2 This translates to somebody dying in a crash involving a freight truck every three hours. Unfortunately, the trend is worsening. 4,311 

large trucks and buses were involved in fatal crashes in 2015, an 8-percent increase 

from 2014.3 In fact, the number of large trucks and buses in fatal crashes has increased by 26 percent from its low in 2009. 87,000 large trucks were involved in 

injury crashes in 2015, a number similar to 2014, and the number of buses involved 

in fatal crashes increased by 11 percent. According to the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (‘‘FMCSA’’), in 2015, 33 percent of the fatal crashes involving 

large trucks involved at least one driver-related factor for the truck driver—including speeding, distraction/inattention, and impairment (fatigue, alcohol, illness, etc.), 

and 57 percent of fatal crashes involving trucks had at least one driver-related factor for the passenger vehicle driver.4

It is important that we not simply cite these statistics as mere talking points. The 

context of the Committee’s inquiry into trucking at this hearing goes beyond exploring the landscape of self-driving technology at an introductory level. The Committee 

74 

5 U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (2016), at 5. 

6 U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (2017), at 

1. 7See https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/aboutus/opstory.htm. 

8See https://www.epa.gov/smartway/why-freight-matters-supply-chain-sustainability. 

9See http://business.edf.org/projects/green-freight-facts-figures/. 

10 NHTSA’s regulatory authority over motor vehicles makes no exception for commercial vehicles. 49 U.S.C. § 30111. NHTSA has issued standards on such subjects as heavy vehicle brakes 

and tires, bus emergency exits, and motorcoach seat belts. FMCSA’s authority over commercial 

vehicle safety does not conflict with, but instead complements, NHTSA’s authority. 49 U.S.C. 

§§ 30103(a) and 31136(a). 11 U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (2017), 

at 2. 

is delving deeper into specific issues related to the longer-term application of selfdriving technology and automation to trucks and heavy duty vehicles. We encourage 

the Committee to consider the grave toll that these thousands of fatalities and millions of injuries are having on American society, and how that trend will worsen 

if higher levels of automated driving technology are prohibited from being responsibly deployed across the transportation landscape in a timely manner. As NHTSA 

stated in its Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (‘‘FAVP’’) last year, ‘‘whether through 

technology that corrects for human mistakes, or through technology that takes over 

the full driving responsibility, automated driving innovations could dramatically decrease the number of crashes tied to human choices and behavior.’’ 5 In its new policy document, NHTSA reiterates this finding, noting that ‘‘NHTSA believes that 

Automated Driving Systems (ADSs), including those contemplating no driver at all, 

have the potential to significantly improve roadway safety in the United States.’’ 6

This point is just as true for trucks as it is with passenger vehicles. 

Moreover, we urge the Committee to consider the productivity and efficiency improvements that will result from the deployment of self-driving technology. Approximately 25 percent of today’s nonrecurring congestion is attributable to incidents 

ranging from a flat tire to an overturned hazardous material truck.7 Our already 

overburdened highway infrastructure will be even further strained by freight shipments that will grow another 24 percent by 2025 and 45 percent by 2040.8 Yet 15– 

25 percent of truck miles driven are empty and more than a third of the non-empty 

miles are underutilized.9 Automated trucks can break the ‘‘vicious cycle’’ of worsening congestion, restrained productivity, and lives lost in congestion-related crashes by driving in off-peak times and increasing the utilization rates. 

NHTSA’s oversight and jurisdiction covers all motor vehicles, whether light vehicles or heavier vehicles, including those weighing over 10,000 pounds.10 As such, the 

Department of Transportation’s policy statement and framework for automated vehicles, both the in original version released in September 2016 and the recently revised document released just yesterday, explicitly make clear that the guidance covers all motor vehicles.11 We do not feel that the Senate or Congress should deviate 

from that approach and establish a distinction. Congress should continue to encourage NHTSA to leverage its resources, expertise and learnings across all vehicle and 

equipment types in order to fulfill the Agency’s safety mission. Placing medium and 

heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, on a separate track would establish a dangerous precedent that would only create confusion, uncertainty, and potentially jeopardize the full safety benefits that self-driving vehicles can potentially provide. 

Finally, in light of this Committee’s consideration of a new discussion draft of legislation that would address automated vehicle issues, I would like to take this opportunity to provide feedback on some of the key elements that the Coalition believes are necessary to construct a robust, fair, and efficacious legislative framework 

for automated vehicles. 

1. Clarifying the appropriate Federal and state roles and responsibilities when it 

comes to fully self-driving vehicles. The Federal Government should retain the 

authority to promulgate and enforce nationally uniform motor vehicle safety 

standards applicable to all vehicle types, regardless of the weight or type of 

motor vehicle. We do not believe self-driving vehicles present a reason to deviate from that well established precedent. States should be discouraged from 

creating a patchwork of inconsistent laws and regulations relating to such 

standards that have the potential to stifle this emerging industry. Any bill 

should clearly delineate that the states should continue to retain their traditional role in establishing and maintaining the rules of the road, vehicle registration, traffic enforcement, and with respect to insurance, while making 

clear that it is the Federal Government’s exclusive authority to set standards 

related to the safety, performance, and design of fully self-driving vehicles. 

75 

1 NHTSA, UMTRI 

2. Expanding NHTSA’s current exemption authority to permit new safety features 

unique to fully self-driving vehicles. Today, Level 4 and Level 5 fully self-driving vehicles are subject to all of the criteria in the Federal safety standards, 

even though certain decades-old provisions were clearly designed with a human 

driver in mind. Under today’s rules, NHTSA can exempt a maximum of 2,500 

vehicles from a manufacturer’s fleet for up to 2 years so long as an applicant 

demonstrates that its vehicles provide a level of safety at least equal to current 

motor vehicle safety standards. We do not propose any change to the standard 

of equivalent safety. However, the numerical and temporal limitations on exemptions under current law present a concrete obstacle to achievement of the 

goal of rapid, safe and robust deployment necessary to attain the safety and 

mobility benefits we believe fully self-driving vehicles promise. Congress should 

increase the exempted fleet size and extend the exemption period to advance 

consumer acceptance and to promote self-driving technology’s safety, accessibility, and mobility benefits. Congress also should be mindful to extend such 

additional flexibility to both traditional OEMs and other developers of self-driving technology. The Coalition sees expanded exemption authority not as a replacement for industry-wide standards, but rather as as a necessary short-term 

measure to deploy safety innovations pending the completion of extended 

rulemakings. 

3. Encourage USDOT modes, including NHTSA and FMCSA, to appropriately review and address existing Federal regulations, as needed, to ensure that vehicles without human drivers or human driver controls continue to be permissible, to ensure the safety and mobility benefits described. 

4. Ensure Consistency Between the Proposed Draft and USDOT’s Automated 

Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, particularly on categories of safety 

processes to be considered by AV companies. 

I want to thank the Committee for its leadership on these important issues. The 

Coalition looks forward to serving as a resource concerning both technical and policy 

questions and working with you to make fully self-driving vehicles a reality. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC MEYHOFER, HEAD OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES

GROUP (ATG), UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. BILL NELSON, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony on self-driving vehicles and, more specifically, the significant safety advantages regarding self-driving 

commercial motor vehicles on our highways. 

Self-driving trucks can lead to significant and outsized safety gains for all road 

users. Therefore, the Committee should not delay in establishing a safety-oriented 

regulatory environment for all vehicles that will encourage ongoing investments in 

the research and development of these technologies. 

In 2015, Uber launched our Advanced Technologies Group (ATG) which focuses 

on developing both self-driving cars and Class 8 freight trucks. In our trucking efforts, we are driven by the vision of self-driving trucks becoming the safest and most 

efficient way to move freight. We are also motivated by the knowledge that technology has long been the driver of transportation safety gains. Forward collision 

warning and crash imminent braking systems in heavy trucks are already estimated 

to reduce fatalities by 24 percent and decrease injuries by 25 percent.1 New technologies such as lane keeping assistance and adaptive cruise control features have 

begun to have significant impacts as well. Put simply, full self-driving systems are 

the logical next step in the decades-long evolution of technology driven safety improvements in trucking. 

Self-driving trucks will lead to many benefits not just for the trucking industry 

but also for the public at large. First and most critically, these trucks will be involved in fewer crashes, especially tragic fatal ones. That is good news for everyone 

because approximately 3 in 4 fatal truck crashes involve a collision with another veVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
76 

2FMCSA 

3 NHTSA 

4 BLS 

5Over 70 percent of the goods all Americans use every day are moved by truck. (ATA) 6 US DOT, FHWA, FMCSA, NHTSA 

7FMCSA 

hicle,2 and over 80 percent of deaths are those of people that were outside the 

truck.3 Truck drivers will also benefit enormously, as theirs is the single deadliest 

profession in absolute numbers.4

Additionally, self-driving trucks will reduce gridlock due to fewer crashes and 

from the increased ability to use off-peak times, such as driving safely in the middle 

of the night. In turn, this will improve the utilization rates of trucks, cut overall 

shipping times and make the national freight network more efficient. As a result, 

there will also be less fuel waste and fewer harmful pollutant emissions. Taken together, and in light of the central role that trucking plays in the national economy,5

self-driving trucks could one day help support broader economic growth. 

These ultimate benefits are well-known and understood by experts, but before 

they are realized, we must first build and iterate on the technology. The Uber ATG 

team is hard at work doing just that. Although we have engaged in limited trucking 

pilots, we have not yet developed self-driving trucks that are capable of sustained 

operation without a driver behind traditional driving controls. However, we believe 

that achieving such capabilities for ramp-to-ramp driving on interstate highways is 

one of the best near-term opportunities for any self-driving vehicle, not just trucks. 

The autonomous vehicle industry is still in the early stages, but Uber believes this 

is the right time for Congress to act. We look forward to continuing to work with 

the Committee to shape legislation that will establish a smart, safe, and responsible 

regulatory framework. Your work on these issues today will help encourage strategic, long-term innovation in this space. 

Self-driving trucks on interstates offer outsized safety gains for all of us 

who share the road and significantly advance the development of the 

entire autonomous vehicle ecosystem because: 

1. Automated high-speed highway driving offers great potential safety benefits 

(especially since trucks are disproportionately represented in fatal crashes) yet 

presents a more straightforward engineering challenge. 

2. Trucks on interstates offer unique opportunities for rapid learning and safety 

gains for all self-driving vehicles. The technical learning from self-driving 

trucks helps accelerate the development of all vehicles with self-driving technologies because trucks more frequently face the challenging highway scenarios 

that any self-driving vehicle needs to overcome. 

3. The trucking industry long ago established best practices in fleet management 

and complex transportation networks that are crucial for the development of 

many self-driving efforts. 

Automating trucks on interstates provides an excellent near-term safety 

opportunity. 

Freight trucks are disproportionately involved in serious crashes: combination 

trucks are only 1 percent of registered vehicles and drive less than 6 percent of all 

miles traveled, but are involved in almost 10 percent of all crash fatalities.6 This 

translates to someone dying in a crash involving a freight truck every three hours. 

And while 87 percent of truck-related crashes are caused by human errors,7 it also 

bears noting that many of these errors are those of other motorists engaging in 

risky behavior around large trucks. 

Self-driving trucks will mitigate and prevent crashes caused not only by truck 

drivers, but also by drivers in other vehicles. That is because self-driving technologies do more than just avoid the unsafe behaviors, distractions and fatigue of 

a truck driver. They also enable a self-driving truck to ‘‘see’’ in all directions at once, 

react faster, and even predict cut-offs and other movements of neighboring vehicles. 

In other words, the same factors that result in trucks being disproportionately represented in serious crashes could also result in disproportionate safety gains in the 

automation of trucks relative to other vehicles. 

This places trucks on freeways at the forefront of our ability to begin realizing 

the safety potential of all self-driving vehicles. Because of the high-speed environment and the difference in the mass of trucks versus cars, crashes with heavy 

trucks tend to be much more serious than those involving just cars. Yet the interstate highway environment also offers a somewhat easier engineering challenge for 

our team to solve in the near term. On the highway, the flow of traffic is predictVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
77 

8We note, also, that the business-to-business nature in the development of self-driving trucks 

will further promote safety-first efforts. Large shippers that need to move valuable goods across 

the country and the motor carriers they rely upon for freight transport will demand tangible 

and measurable safety improvements over traditional driving. They will not adopt self-driving 

technology simply because they are ‘‘gadget enthusiasts’’ nor will they be subject to the same 

temptations as individual consumers to push the technology to its limits and potentially misuse 

it. 

able, the lanes are wide and there are few or no cross streets. Pedestrians, bicycles 

and other vulnerable road users are a rare occurrence, and there are no traffic 

lights and sharp turns to navigate. Moreover, it is relatively straightforward and 

cost-effective to create and maintain maps of the few hundred miles of interstate 

lanes on which the first self-driving trucks will drive. 

Because self-driving trucks can lead to such significant and outsized safety gains 

for all road users sooner rather than later, we should not delay in establishing a 

safety-oriented regulatory environment that will encourage ongoing investments in 

the research and development of these technologies. 

Research and development of self-driving trucks enables rapid 

improvement in the safety of all self-driving vehicles, not just trucks. 

At Uber ATG, our self-driving trucks and cars will be different products with different customers and business opportunities. However, the engineering team developing the core technology is the same. Furthermore, the majority of the hardware 

and software powering our self-driving efforts is also used across both vehicle platforms. This is no accident—last year, we expanded our self-driving efforts to include 

trucks precisely because we saw a great opportunity for cars and trucks to learn 

from one another and improve in tandem, thereby accelerating our ability to capture 

the safety potential of self-driving vehicles. 

During these early days of the self-driving industry, vehicles with the new technologies will be deployed in an overwhelmingly human-centric driving environment. 

The challenging high-speed scenarios encountered more frequently by self-driving 

trucks on interstate highways will also need to be mastered by all autonomous vehicles. Our engineers will efficiently and quickly leverage the highway safety learning 

of self-driving trucks to realize even greater safety gains with our self-driving cars, 

benefitting all road users. 

Self-driving trucks and self-driving cars are part of the same transportation ecosystem, as are all traditional vehicles of all sizes. A decision to pass legislation that 

only provides regulatory certainty for some motor vehicles while leaving others in 

an uncertain status would have the practical consequence of delaying the development of the technology for the vehicles not covered by the legislation. Businesses, 

especially in the trucking industry, operate on long lead-times and require clarity 

with respect to regulatory matters. In addition, because the roads and basic technologies are shared, such a delay in establishing basic safety and vehicle design 

standards for self-driving trucks would directly delay and impede the development 

of all autonomous vehicles for highway driving and, ultimately, slow progress on 

road safety for all Americans. 

Professional fleet operations and maintenance are the norm in the 

trucking industry. 

As has been widely noted, including in Uber’s June 13, 2017 written testimony 

for this Committee, most technology companies and OEMs are investing in a fleet 

model when it comes to their self-driving efforts. That approach holds the key to 

faster and safer development of these technologies. The fleet model makes self-driving technology more cost effective, provides for shared learning and improvement of 

all vehicles in the fleet, greatly improves overall efficiencies in the deployment and 

routing of automated vehicles and—most importantly—ensures that the vehicles are 

deployed in the safest manner possible and only in the conditions that they are able 

to safely operate in. 

We are excited that Uber will be at the forefront of this transition in passenger 

vehicle use from the traditional manufacturer-sold, owner-operated model to the 

shared fleets that self-driving cars will need. But while ride-sharing services like 

ours are a relatively new option for the mass mobility of people in cities, the trucking industry has depended on fleets and advanced network management to get 

goods across great distances for many decades. As such, the large cadre of professional truck drivers, safety-oriented fleet maintenance and management, and advanced supply chain operations mean that long-haul trucking is an ideal setting for 

self-driving technologies.8 Given that the vast majority of research and development 

work in all self-driving vehicles for the foreseeable future will be based on the fleet 

model, we should not delay in implementing a regulatory safety framework that 

78 

would foster great innovation in the one industry with the longest-established best 

practices in fleet based transportation. 

Recommendations 

We are encouraged by congressional interest in establishing a clear role for the 

Federal Government in the regulation of self-driving vehicles, starting with a framework for vehicle design standards that would ensure safety while encouraging further investment in research and development. We believe it is critical that all vehicles benefit from the regulatory certainty that comes with Federal legislation. It is 

especially important that the trucking industry, which has high capital expenditures, long lead times, and is dependent upon the smooth flow of interstate commerce, not be left in limbo while legislation covering different classes of vehicles 

moves forward. Such an outcome would not only be contrary to current Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards but also hinder the development of the entire autonomous vehicle ecosystem. 

We therefore recommend that any legislation encompass all self-driving vehicles, 

so that they can be subject to the same basic vehicle design and safety standards. 

That is the best way for Congress to encourage today’s ongoing safety-first R&D efforts in the self-driving space. Although this is just the first step, we are very bullish about the future of trucking, both self-driving and traditional. Earlier this year 

Uber announced the launch of Uber Freight, a significant long-term investment in 

improving traditional freight efficiency through a more effective freight brokering 

approach, with a focus on addressing many of the pain points for truck drivers today 

and well into the future. 

As Uber continues to expand our self-driving ventures in trucking and passenger 

vehicles, we are eager to continue working with Congress and all other stakeholders 

in the drive to deploy self-driving vehicles safely and rapidly. We are committed to 

building and rolling out the technology in the safest way, as demonstrated in our 

close cooperation with the State of Colorado, including the Colorado State Patrol, 

before successfully delivering the world’s first shipment by a self-driving truck in 

October 2016. 

Uber thanks Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Peters and all 

members of the Committee for their continued leadership and foresight on these 

issues. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to share our vision for the future of 

the entire self-driving ecosystem, and look forward to working with you all to ensure 

that we are maximizing the benefits of this technology for all road users. 

EMBARK

September 21, 2017 

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for opportunity to submit written testimony for the hearing 

‘‘Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation’s Highways.’’ Embark Trucks, Inc. (Embark) is a San Francisco-based developer of software that powers automated driving systems for trucks. Embark’s aim is to develop a self-driving 

system that can pilot a truck, without a human occupant, from exit to exit on long 

haul highway routes. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the perspective of our company from the 

front lines of the nascent automated vehicle industry given the vast amount of speculation, hype, and misconception that has permeated this topic in recent years, especially with respect to commercial vehicles. From concerns at the dawn of the industrial revolution to President Johnson’s National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress in the 1960s, the debate on automation and fears 

of the disruption it may cause is not a new topic. 

This is not to minimize such concerns, rather to point out that innovation, 

progress, and growth often come at the cost of disrupting business as usual. How 

we as a country support and empower the individuals and businesses affected by 

such disruption is a worthy topic of discussion, but we sincerely hope that the path 

of simple obstruction is not an option. 

This testimony will cover these four topics for the Committee: 

(1) Why trucking is now seen as a leading application for automation, attracting 

interest from major companies, startups, and foreign governments. 

(2) How self-driving technology will be introduced to the trucking industry 

(3) What the impacts of truck automation will be for the industry and American 

economy 

(4) Why automated vehicle legislation should include all vehicles 

79 

1While there are over 2.6 million miles of paved roads in the United States, only about 

228,000 miles are part of the National Highway System, and less than 48,000 miles—or about 

1.8 percent—are interstate per Federal Highway Administration—Highway Statistics 2013 

Table HM–12 and Table HM–15 2 American Trucking Associations (http://www.trucking.org/News_and_Information_Reports 

_Industry_Data.aspx) 

Why Trucks 

Within the automated vehicle industry, heavy duty commercial vehicles have recently emerged as a likely early use case for high automation. Sessions on automated trucks at annual conferences have grown from nearly empty to standing room 

only. Startups have been joined by large companies like Waymo and Tesla in exploring how automated driving technology can be applied to commercial vehicles. Governments from the United Kingdom and Netherlands to China are investing in automated truck research. While self-driving passenger vehicles might best capture our 

imagination given America’s love affair with the car, the potential benefits to commercial trucking actually create a clearer case for on-highway truck automation. 

On a technical level, the many hours a long-haul truck spends on multi-lane, limited access highways and interstates is an ideal first environment for automation. 

A driverless truck restricted to highway environments would not have to contend 

with pedestrians, cyclists, intersections, or traffic lights. For automated systems 

that require detailed 3D maps, maintaining maps of 48,000 miles of interstate is 

more attainable and lower cost than mapping all 2.6 million miles of paved roads 

in the U.S.1 From the business case perspective, the trucking industry has a clear 

financial incentive to adopt new methods of improving productivity and safety while 

reducing costs. While passenger vehicle decisions can be made for a variety of reasons—convenience, comfort, brand loyalty—the pragmatism of the trucking industry 

means if something new can be proven to improve efficiency or reduce crashes, fleets 

will pay attention. 

How Automation Will Be Deployed 

As many stated during the Commerce Committee’s September 13th hearing on 

the topic, truck automation will not happen overnight. Today we are seeing the maturing of commercially available level 1 automation technology in trucking with 

adaptive cruise control systems. Capabilities of these types of driver-assistive systems will continue to increase in the future. At Embark, our goal lies beyond driver 

assistive, to design a system that is capable of operating from exit to exit without 

a human in the cab. However, this does not mean ‘‘professional driver’’ will cease 

to be a viable profession in a matter of years, despite much of the sensationalism 

around this issue. 

Early driverless systems will aim to tackle the ‘‘low hanging fruit’’ of freight 

trucking: long, simple stretches of interstate outside of dangerous weather conditions and with non-hazardous cargo. Even on relatively simple routes, there are 

many complex logistical and operational issues that will need to be overcome in cooperation with regulators, law enforcement, and other stakeholders. Each fleet or 

shipper will have to evaluate the technology and decide if it is the right fit for their 

needs, and if so, what portion. It is likely that some portions of long, predictable 

truck runs become automated while other portions are kept manual to deal with last 

minute changes in dispatching, capacity, or complex weather. Experienced drivers 

may prefer local or regional routes that use their technical driving skills in urban 

environments and allow them to sleep in their own bed every night. The bottom line 

is that automation will not be everywhere, all at once. But automated trucks are 

coming, and over time will significantly improve the freight trucking landscape. 

Impacts of Freight Trucking Automation 

So what will the impacts be, and what’s at stake? Freight trucking is a $726 billion industry that moves over 70 percent of the Nation’s freight.2 The industry is 

the circulatory system of the American economy, and its health and efficiency touch 

virtually every other industry and consumer. Every product we buy or export includes some cost of moving it. Thousands of fleets and owner-operators operate 

under tight timelines and tighter margins, bringing us the things we need each day 

to run our businesses, care for the sick, and live our lives. 

First and foremost, automation holds the key for turning the tide in the struggle 

for safer roads. Embark is a proud member of the Road to Zero Coalition, and we 

firmly believe that deploying highly automated driving systems for both cars and 

trucks is the only way to truly get to a future of zero road fatalities when 87 percent 

80 

3Large Truck Crash Causation Study, Federal Highway Administration, July 2007 

4Singh, S. Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 115. Washington, D.C.: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 5 NHTSA ‘‘The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2010 (revised 2015)’’ 

available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013 6 American Trucking Associations Technology and Maintenance Council Recommended Practice 1114A: Driver’s Effect on Fuel Economy 7McKinsey Global Institute, ‘‘A Future That Works: Automation, Employment, and Productivity,’’ Jan. 2017. Available at http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/digital-disruption/harnessing-automation-for-a-future-that-works 8 ATA Freight Transportation Forecast 2017 (http://www.trucking.org/article/ATA-ForecastsContinued-Growth-for-Trucking-and-Freight-Economy) 

of large truck crashes 3 and 94 percent of all vehicle crashes 4 are due to human 

error. NHTSA has estimated the total value of societal harm from motor vehicle 

crashes in 2010 was $836 billion, including $242 billion in pure economic costs— 

$784 for every person living in the United States and 1.6 percent of GDP.5 Highly 

automated trucks can eliminate the dangers of driver distraction and fatigue that 

are the constant subject of an ever-evolving regulatory regime. There are certainly 

many miles to travel, both literally and figuratively, to bring self-driving trucks to 

market. However, simply put, when 11 people per day die in truck related accidents 

in the United States, the safety potential from truck automation is too dramatic and 

important to delay. 

The economic impacts of truck automation are significant and positive. Much attention has been focused on the first order benefit of reducing operating costs to 

move freight. However, while this effect will alone have the broad impact on the cost 

of both raw and finished goods, automation can dramatically reshape what is possible for the freight trucking industry to accomplish in service of a multitude of 

other industries. Imagine the benefits of reducing by several days the time it takes 

to move goods across the country because a self-driving truck can run the majority 

of a long-haul route free from hours of service regulations meant to manage human 

fatigue. Wastage of perishable goods would be reduced, medical equipment would 

be delivered to hospitals faster and cheaper, and business inventory decisions could 

be made later with better information. American manufacturing would have an advantage of a freight system that is safer, cheaper, and more efficient than other 

parts of the world. 

Furthermore, it is estimated that the relative skill of a driver can account for a 

35 percent difference in fuel efficiency.6 Self-driving trucks can learn to drive a 

route in a maximally efficient manner, and do so reliably every time, contributing 

significantly to freight trucking efficiency. 

On a broad economic level, the U.S. is facing slowing growth in both labor force 

productivity and size, which will create headwinds for GDP growth. The McKinsey 

Global Institute estimated that automation technologies, including heavy truck automation, could improve global productivity growth by as much as 1.4 percent annually.7

Labor interests have voiced understandable concern regarding how automation 

may affect current and future drivers. The industry is currently facing a driver 

shortage as well as a demographic cliff of older drivers retiring—all at a time when 

freight tonnage is forecasted to increase by over 36 percent in the next decade driven by online retailing and other trends.8 Automation can help fill this gap. In the 

medium term, as automated long-haul routes are established, some drivers will be 

attracted to an expected increased volume of local and regional routes that include 

moving freight to staging areas for automated routes. Such routes would rely more 

heavily on the skillsets of experienced drivers to navigate complicated non-highway 

roads while providing a higher quality of life by allowing them to stay close to home. 

It is important to note that automation will not be everywhere, all at once. Development of self—driving systems will take years, while deployment will occur in specific 

use cases, on specific routes. A deliberate pace of deployment will allow working collaboratively with the driver community to address any job displacement from longhaul routes and augment training to allow drivers to take advantage of new types 

of jobs created by truck automation—while still ensuring the broad economic benefits of truck automation. We firmly believe, based on our in-depth understanding of 

self-driving truck technology, that everyone employed in the trucking industry today 

will be able to retire in the trucking industry. 

Why Include Commercial Vehicles in Legislation 

At this early but critical stage in the development of a regulatory regime, we believe it is in the best interest of the Federal Government, technology developers, and 

the road-faring public that Congress includes heavy vehicles in any national frameVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
81 

9Kania, Elsa. ‘‘China’s Artificial Intelligence Revolution.’’ The Diplomat. July 27, 2017. Available at http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/chinas-artificial-intelligence-revolution/ 

work. From our perspective, it is important that Congress’s work builds on NHTSA’s 

inclusive approach and avoids creating a bifurcated regulatory environment for 

automated vehicle equipment that excludes heavy vehicles. 

We are not alone in believing the first applications of vehicle automation are best 

suited for long haul freight trucking, from both a technical and economic perspective. By excluding heavy vehicles, Congress risks ignoring the growing industry consensus that early applications of vehicle automation, including self-driving systems, 

will likely include long-haul trucking. 

Excluding heavy vehicles from the Senate bill will not prevent the development 

of this technology, which will continue under various state-level regulatory regimes. 

However, the practical effect will be to leave the development of this important technology outside of the emerging Federal regulatory regime intended to promote certain safety, transparency, and cybersecurity practices while increasing uncertainty 

and complexity for technology developers. Meanwhile, international efforts to develop similar technology w ill continue with full-throated support from foreign governments. China has recently announced that it intends to become the world leader 

in artificial intelligence—the key to unlocking level 4 and 5 automation—by 2025. 

This is no idle threat. Chinese automated truck companies are testing on road 

today, and the Chinese government roadmap foresees their core AI industry being 

worth $59 billion by 2025, with associated industries including self-driving being 

worth a combined $740 billion.9 Legislation that only supports lower levels of automation or certain vehicle types will not allow America to maintain its current but 

threatened position as leader on technologies that will power the global economy in 

the coming decades. 

There are certainly additional regulatory and operational issues specific to commercial vehicles that FMCSA and other relevant agencies will need to address in 

consultation with industry as highly automated trucks are developed. Nothing in 

the current draft as contemplated by the Committee would circumvent this important work from proceeding thoughtfully and with deliberate speed if trucks are included. But from an equipment perspective, the sensors,processors, and software 

that will power automated trucks are not dissimilar from those that will power 

automated passenger vehicles. The testing, validation, and cybersecurity requirements to prove the safety and reliability of automated driving systems will still need 

to be of the highest rigor regardless of vehicle type. Fundamentally, we believe the 

most sensible way forward for this and future bills is to continue to build framework 

for establishing if an automated vehicle is safe for public roads, regardless of the 

size of the vehicle. 

Conclusion 

Embark thanks Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and the rest of the 

Committee on their thoughtful leadership on this issue, and the opportunity to 

share our perspective as a leader in commercial vehicle automation. We are eager 

to continue to contribute to a clear-eyed conversation on how best to deploy this 

technology safely and efficiently for the benefit of the American public and American economy. 

Respectfully, 

ALEX RODRIGUES, 

CEO and Co-founder, 

Embark. 

JONATHAN MORRIS, 

Head of Public Policy, 

Embark. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRUCK SAFETY COALITION

The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) thanks Members of the U.S. Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for holding this important hearing, 

‘‘Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation’s Highways.’’ We 

look forward to working with members of the Committee as well as safety advocates, technology companies, and leaders in the trucking industry to continue discussing the role of autonomous technologies in commercial motor vehicles and to develop an oversight framework that prioritizes safety first. 

82 

TSC recognizes the potential safety benefits of autonomous technologies in trucking, especially at a time when truck crashes continue to climb. Since 2009, truck 

crashes have gone up by 45 percent, resulting in a 20 percent increase in truck 

crash fatalities and a 57 percent increase in truck crash injuries. To make matters 

worse, truck vehicle miles decreased by three percent in that same time, meaning 

that the truck crash involvement, truck crash injury, and truck crash fatality rates 

have all increased over the past six years. 

Current technology 

While TSC is excited that autonomous technologies have the potential to prevent 

and mitigate thousands of crashes resulting from human error, we also want to ensure that the process for testing and developing AV technology in trucks does not 

jeopardize public safety. As we continue to figure out the details of the regulatory 

framework associated with AV technology, we urge lawmakers to work towards 

mandating automatic emergency braking (AEB) and heavy vehicle speed limiters on 

all trucks. 

Mandating speed limiters be set on all trucks is a commonsense step to improving 

truck safety that will produce more net benefits than costs. Since the 1990s, speed 

limiter technology has been built into all truck engine control modules, which eliminates the cost of installing this life saving technology. Additionally, motor carriers 

will see a return on investment by reducing their speed-related, at-fault crashes— 

some of the deadliest and costliest types of truck crashes. In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation found that speed-related, at-fault truck crashes dropped by 

73 percent after Ontario’s truck speed limiter mandate took effect. 

Automatic emergency braking is not a new technology either. The European 

Union mandated AEB on large trucks back in 2012, requiring all new trucks to be 

equipped with it by 2015. Here in the U.S., motor carriers have been using AEB 

long enough to establish its effectiveness and reliability. In fact, one trucking company saw their number of rear-end collisions decrease by nearly 80 percent from 

2003 to 2015 after equipping their fleet with an active system of collision avoidance 

and mitigation. 

Another large trucking company, performed an internal study over a 30-month period on approximately 12,600 of its trucks 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. The results were clear and compelling: 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. 

We urge members of the Committee to look at the drastic reductions in truck 

crash fatalities in the European Union, which requires both speed limiters and automatic emergency braking. Listen to the CEOs of successful companies who will attest to the safety and cost benefits of equipping their trucks with these technologies. 

Meet with the survivors and families of victims of truck crashes that could have 

been prevented had these technologies been mandated. 

Speed limiters and automatic emergency braking serve as building blocks to 

achieving a fully autonomous truck, and, more importantly, can improve safety 

today, rather than several years from now. 

AV Technology 

The deployment of autonomous technology in trucking is both inevitable and fast 

approaching. Yet, the rapidity of the technological advancements in trucking does 

not absolve the Department of Transportation of its responsibility to promote safety 

across an industry that engages in Interstate commerce on publicly funded roads. 

The DOT must go beyond a weak voluntary agreement and develop a regulatory 

framework that protects public safety without stymying innovation. 

As we approach a future where driver-assisted and autonomous commercial motor 

vehicles will be operating alongside driver-operated vehicles, it will become increasingly important for the Federal Government to ensure that the test to determine 

the efficacy of AV technology as well as the technology itself are standardized. Failure to create agreed upon methods and metrics to determine success could result 

in trucks operating with unreliable and unsafe technologies and testing that does 

not accurately assess whether a technology will perform as it is intended. This creates two potential problems: (1) a technology intended to make our roads safer will 

instead diminish road safety, and (2) the public’s confidence in this technology will 

erode, making it more difficult to roll out on a large scale. 

83 

No exemptions for trucks 

The Truck Safety Coalition supports several recommendations that we believe will 

make sure that the rollout of AV technology in trucks is both safe and smooth: 

There should be no exemption for commercial motor vehicles from Federal legislation regarding the development and deployment of autonomous vehicle technology. 

Although trucks and cars should face different performance and testing standards, 

Federal oversight for trucks is critical. 

Manufacturers of AV Technology Requirements 

• AV systems must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards without 

any exemptions 

• AV systems must meet or exceed a ‘‘functional safety standard’’ as to be determined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) 

• AV systems must meet or exceed a minimum cybersecurity standard as to be 

issued by the Secretary within 3 years of enactment of this legislation 

• Submit a detailed report that analyzes the safety performance of automated 

driving systems and automated vehicles 

• Remove from operation any autonomous commercial motor vehicle with a defect 

• Determine whether a defect affects one vehicle or if the defect is fleet-wide 

• Report all fatal, injury and property damage only crashes involving driver-assisted and autonomous trucks to NHTSA 

• Establish a privacy plan 

Motor Carrier Requirements 

• Apply for additional operation authority 

• An operator with a valid commercial driver’s license must be in the autonomous 

commercial motor vehicle at all times 

» The operator shall have an additional endorsement on his CDL denoting that 

he has been adequately trained to manage the AV technologies in the truck 

Secretary of Transportation Requirements 

• Establish a database for autonomous commercial vehicles. Information should 

include: 

» Vehicle’s identification number 

» Manufacturer, make, model and trim information 

» Level of automation and operational design domain of each of the vehicle’s 

automated driving systems 

» Any exemptions from Federal motor vehicle safety standards granted to the 

vehicle 

• Promulgate a regulation on driver engagement 

• Determine any additional enforcement measures pertaining to AV technology 

that state and local law enforcement should consider during road side inspections 

• Request and direct additional resources to NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to develop regulations and execute enforcement efforts relating to AV technology. 

We strongly believe that AV technology has the potential to eliminate many preventable injuries and needless deaths, but policy-makers must proceed prudently. 

Policy-makers should look to ensure that we are proceeding safely in our pursuit 

of achieving safe and reliable AV technology in trucks. We hope to work with members of the Committee as well as other interests to determine the benchmarks of 

adequate testing, the extent of Federal oversight, and the details of safety standards 

as we work towards realizing driver assisted and autonomous trucks that reduce 

crashes, prevent injuries, and save lives. 

84 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

COLONEL SCOTT G. HERNANDEZ

Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers becoming ‘‘more 

like airline pilots’’, and keeping an eye on the fleet and managing various aspects 

of the trucking experience. While I’m pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different 

role, I do want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New 

Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking industry. What 

kinds of job training and re-training should be available to these workers? What is 

the role of industry in helping us alleviate these challenges? 

Answer. While I appreciate the question, the issue is outside my area of expertise 

and I would defer to the other expert witnesses on the panel. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

TROY CLARKE

Question. Mr. Clarke, thank you for your testimony. You note in your testimony, 

that you see drivers becoming ‘‘more like airline pilots’’, and keeping an eye on the 

fleet and managing various aspects of the trucking experience. While I’m pleased 

to see that you and other truck manufacturing companies see truck drivers staying 

in their jobs in a slightly different role, I do want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who 

work in the trucking industry. What kinds of job training and re-training should 

be available to these workers? What is the role of industry in helping us alleviate 

these challenges? 

Answer. The industry is already experiencing a driver shortage and as the American Trucking Association pointed out in their testimony, we are expecting that 

shortage to grow to 1 million drivers over the next decade. Our industry is focused 

on driver assisted technology that will help attract new, younger drivers to this 

noble profession. My customers continue to express their views that they still see 

a driver in the seat of a truck, not the elimination. Regarding training programs, 

manufacturers are focused on how do we train drivers to use this technology and 

receive the benefits. I believe that we need training classes, whether through the 

established CDL process or other formal training, that ensures that drivers are well 

equipped to handle this technology in the safest way possible. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

DEBORAH A.P. HERSMAN

Distracted Driving. While I was at the hearing there was significant discussion 

about the ongoing need to reduce crashes caused by distracted drivers. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration data show that almost 3,500 people were 

killed in distraction-related crashes in 2015—an increase of almost 300 from 2014. 

I included a provision in the FAST Act to help more states qualify for Federal 

grants to fight distracted driving, but there is still more to be done. Technology like 

emergency braking and lane departure warnings can help reduce distraction-related 

crashes, but the technology is only deployed in about ten percent of trucks. 

Question. Ms. Hersman, what can be done to increase the deployment of these 

technologies in large trucks? 

Answer. If we want to see greater penetration of life-saving technology, we can 

pursue regulations to require a standard for new manufacture and/or retrofit, we 

can encourage or incentivize all commercial motor vehicle manufacturers to offer 

AEB as a voluntary standard, and we can educate operators on the benefits and the 

return on investment for the technology so they will elect to purchase only vehicles 

with this technology. 

NSC recognizes that mandating or regulating safety standards in the U.S. has not 

been as prevalent as it once was due to industry opposition and the lengthy process 

for finalizing rules, but we are falling behind the rest of the world when it comes 

to embracing technology and adopting standards. The European Union required all 

new trucks and buses sold after November 1, 2015 to be equipped with advanced 

emergency braking systems and lane departure warning systems. While these technologies are often available as options—safety should not be dependent on the operator upgrading their option package—these lifesaving technologies protect not just 

the commercial driver, but the travelling public since 90 percent of fatalities involving large commercial vehicles are the occupants of passenger cars. 

85 

We applaud the voluntary commitment made in March of 2016 by 20 automakers 

to include automatic emergency braking (AEB) on all personal vehicles sold in the 

U.S. by 2022. Toyota has already committed to beat this date and install the technology by 2018. This model can be replicated in the commercial motor vehicle industry. As we learned at the hearing, my fellow witness from Navistar stated that they 

already offer AEB as standard on their truck tractors, but not everyone keeps it as 

an option. This model can be replicated for other technologies as well, like lane departure warning and blind spot monitoring. 

We appreciate your leadership on distracted driving and your efforts to engage 

your colleagues on this important issue—the public looks to legislators and policymakers to set the standards for acceptable behavior and passing strong laws sends 

a message that distracted driving is not acceptable. The National Safety Council 

supports your efforts. Additionally, NSC works with businesses to eliminate the use 

of mobile devices behind the wheel. Some of our member companies have instituted 

complete cell phone bans—hand-held AND hands-free—and we encourage all businesses to evaluate such an option. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

DEBORAH A.P. HERSMAN

Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers becoming ‘‘more 

like airline pilots’’, and keeping an eye on the fleet and managing various aspects 

of the trucking experience. While I’m pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different 

role, I do want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New 

Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking industry. What 

kinds of job training and re-training should be available to these workers? What is 

the role of industry in helping us alleviate these challenges? 

Answer. The National Safety Council is committed to eliminating preventable 

deaths at work, in homes and communities and on the road. Unfortunately, the 

transportation sector is one of the deadliest occupations. Motor vehicle crashes are 

also the leading cause of ALL workplace deaths. It is important to recognize that 

moving these jobs from the cab of a truck to a control room could would result in 

greater safety on-the-job for these professionals. 

Thinking about the driving task, I do not believe that truck drivers will be forced 

out of their jobs for the foreseeable future. Commercial interstate driving along long 

stretches of controlled-access highways may be the first sector to see level 4 or 5 

trucks, but we must recognize that some real-time monitoring will be required— 

whether in cab or from a remote location. The monitoring, much like controlling air 

traffic or operating a drone, will require qualified and trained professionals. Additionally, when an automated vehicle exits highly controlled environments to navigate city streets and make deliveries, it is likely that drivers will be necessary even 

on basic routes for the near term. Additionally, the driver plays other important 

roles, like verifying the safety of the vehicle before a trip, monitoring changing conditions and safely securing a load—these functions cannot be done by a machine 

today. 

As the trucking industry evolves, some new jobs will be created to help monitor 

fleet operations and ensure proper vehicle maintenance. These jobs and perhaps others that we cannot conceive of today, will likely require a higher level of technical 

skills. In order to ensure a smooth transition for these workers, Congress, states 

and industry should ensure technical training is widely available, with a special emphasis on reaching existing truck drivers. State and local programs already exist 

that may be good models to consider. Finally, our junior colleges and technical 

schools could play an important role in providing STEM education and targeted 

training needed to fill these new roles. Creating high-paying, rewarding and safe 

jobs is something everyone can get behind. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

CHRIS SPEAR

Question. Workforce issues are important to the truck drivers, who keep our economy moving, and to the companies that rely on their skilled labor to deliver goods. 

What steps should Congress take to address the impacts that automated technologies will have on the trucking industry? 

Answer. Thank you for your question, Senator Nelson. It is important to remember that one of the main impacts automated technology will have on the trucking 

industry and its drivers is the reduction of crashes. These technologies are also exVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
86 

pected to bring benefits to the trucking industry in productivity, efficiency, and driver health and wellness. Congress should encourage the development of this technology and establish a clear leadership role for the Federal Government in automated truck policy which, where necessary, exercises Federal preemption to ensure 

that there is no conflict between Federal and state regulations. It is critically important to provide certainty to the developers of automated truck technology that there 

will not be a disparate set of state laws, now or in the future, that unnecessarily 

impedes the ability of a company to test and operate vehicles with their technology 

across state lines and in interstate commerce. This will allow more on-road data to 

be collected more quickly, which will lead to improved system design and better information for making both regulatory and business decisions, including gaining a 

better understanding of how automated technologies will affect the role of the driver 

in real-world applications. Expanding the number and duration of exemptions that 

NHTSA is authorized to allow from current standards that prevent new safety technology from being put on the road will also help in this regard. Congress could also 

direct FMCSA to review Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and see what 

might be changed to account for the new driving environment with automated technology where the driver may be in the seat but not operating the controls. A better 

understanding of how these technologies may benefit the public along with consideration of how regulations can be changed to take advantage of the capabilities that 

this new technology provides will lead to better policy decisions and the development of a regulatory framework that help to realize these benefits. Perhaps there 

can be changes made in hours of service that would improve productivity without 

reducing safety? How should speeds be managed with connected and automated 

technology? These are questions that could be answered as we gather data from 

real-world testing and operation of vehicles with automated technology. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

CHRIS SPEAR

Human Trafficking. I introduced the Combatting Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act with Chairman Thune to give truckers more tools to recognize and 

report human trafficking which passed the Senate on September 14. This bill increases coordination of human trafficking prevention efforts within the Department 

of Transportation, gives the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration new authority to work with drivers on education and outreach efforts, and promotes commercial driver’s license training. Truckers are on the front lines in the battle against 

human trafficking and we must support them. 

Question. Mr. Spear, what steps has the American Trucking Associations and its 

members taken to help drivers combat human trafficking? 

Answer. Thank you for the question Senator Klobuchar, and for your efforts to 

bring greater attention to the horrific crime of human trafficking. Let me begin by 

acknowledging your legislative initiative, the Combatting Human Trafficking in Vehicles Act. I believe that your bill, once enacted, will take an important step forward 

in improving the Federal coordination of anti-human trafficking efforts, as well as 

amplifying the outreach, education and reporting efforts against human trafficking. 

It will be a vital tool in efforts to combat this horrendous crime, a fight that we 

are all in together. The trucking industry, legislators, law enforcement and the general public, must work hand in glove to bring an end to human trafficking. 

ATA and its members have long worked with the industry and our drivers to combat human trafficking. Our drivers are the eyes and ears of the Nation’s highways, 

and are on the front lines of this fight, identifying, reporting and prevent human 

trafficking. ATA serves on the board of Truckers Against Trafficking, supporting 

their efforts on education, information sharing, and amplifying resources to fight 

human trafficking. Additionally, ATA’s America’s Road Team Captains, made up of 

a small group of professional truck drivers who share superior driving skills, remarkable safety records and a strong desire to spread the word about safety on the 

highway, travel the country educating the general public on important trucking 

safety issues, and also the realities of human trafficking and how to report it effectively. 

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. And finally, in recognizing the need for greater collaboration between the 

trucking industry and law enforcement, ATA intends to convene a summit of interested parties on November 30th to discuss issues including human trafficking, and 

87 

how we can work more closely together to prevent this terrible crime. These are just 

some of the efforts ATA and the trucking industry are taking to combat human trafficking, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with you and your colleagues, law enforcement and the good people of our Nation to bring an end to 

human trafficking. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

CHRIS SPEAR

Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers becoming ‘‘more 

like airline pilots’’, and keeping an eye on the fleet and managing various aspects 

of the trucking experience. While I’m pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different 

role, I do want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New 

Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking industry. What 

kinds of job training and re-training should be available to these workers? What is 

the role of industry in helping us alleviate these challenges? 

Answer. Thank you for your question, Senator Hassan. Because of the complexity 

and diversity of the trucking industry, we expect the driver will retain an important 

role in trucking for a long time to come, with automated truck technology applied 

to improve safety and productivity. In fact, the trucking industry is currently facing 

a shortage of drivers, particularly for long-distance drivers, around 50,000. If these 

trends continue, the shortage could hit over 150,000 in a decade, with projections 

are that we’ll need to hire about 890,000 truck drivers over the next 10 years. As 

an industry, we are working hard to recruit new drivers and retain the excellent 

drivers we have now. However, we do not dismiss the importance of considering the 

potential impact on the workforce and the need to develop programs that will help 

prepare workers with the skills needed for the jobs of the future. We believe that 

the application of automated technology in trucking will center on solutions in 

which there remains a role for drivers, rather than a driverless approach. In addition to monitoring the automated driving systems and manually driving in the cityscape and at loading docks, drivers will retain their current responsibilities for securing the cargo, particularly hazardous cargo, as well as for customer interaction 

with the shipper and receiver. Trucking companies will train their employees to operate equipment with the new technology and likely promote the availability of the 

advanced technology on their trucks to attract new and younger workers to the industry. The American Transportation Research Institute, the not-for-profit research 

arm of the trucking industry, recently released a report on how autonomous technologies will impact the trucking industry. That assessment found that highly automated trucks will likely draw new, younger drivers into the trucking industry by 

better meeting the job expectations of millennial workers. Additionally, these new 

technologies are expected to make drivers safer and more productive, making truck 

driving a more attractive career choice, and attracting new people to our industry. 

Affected stakeholders from industry, labor and government should embrace this 

coming innovation and work together to prepare the workforce to operate with the 

new technology. This issue is not unique to the trucking industry, but applies to 

drivers of other commercial and non-commercial vehicles as well as other industries 

where new technologies are being introduced that will change the roles and duties 

of the workforce. By giving the trucking industry access to the same preemptions 

that the autos receive in the Senate Commerce AV START Act we can address these 

concerns now and develop the kind of training and retraining programs that insure 

that safe vehicle operators remain behind the steering wheel of all commercial vehicles. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

KEN HALL

Question. Workforce issues are important to the truck drivers, who keep our economy moving, and to the companies that rely on their skilled labor to deliver goods. 

What steps should Congress take to address the impacts that automated technologies will have on the trucking industry? 

Answer. Senator Nelson, the first step Congress should take is to study this technology in greater detail. No two pieces of automation technology are exactly the 

same, so we should not assume that their impacts on workers will be the same either. Congress should explore in depth what type of technology will be deployed 

first, and then create policies to address the threats each one poses. 

88 

In our estimation, downward pressure on wages and the erosion of basic working 

conditions and safety may be the most significant impact drivers feel from this technology. Anything that undercuts the quality of a truck driver’s profession should be 

a core component of what Congress Studies. Any policy prescriptions stemming from 

that examination must ensure this profession remains a good, middle-class Sustaining job. 

Throughout this process, Congress must also keep in mind that the biggest threat 

to workers from Self-driving vehicles may not be job losses. Drivers who are never 

in danger of being laid off may have as much to fear from this technology as anyone. 

They could face lower wages, a reduction in benefits, fundamental changes to their 

work Schedules, or a longer work day, If a driver is only performing half of the driving duties he or she once was, or those duties have changed companies may try to 

change the Current wage rates. Companies may also immediately decide to reclassify drivers as ‘‘operators’ or ‘‘monitors’ to avoid paying them on a driver’s pay-scale. 

When examining all the impacts this technology will have on workers, we should 

also look past traditional paycheck issues and examine the other ways it will impact 

a driver’s workday. The health and Safety of Workers is a key component of this 

technology that has largely been ignored. A driver in the cab of an automated truck 

will have LiDAR, Sonar, and radar sent through their bodies in massive quantities. 

That exposure could last for days on end, and from far more heavy duty sensors 

than what will be found in automated passenger cars. What steps is industry taking 

to examine the physical effects the technology may have on the human body? Being 

able to get through the workday safely is a core issue facing the driving workforce, 

so these types of issues should be treated as ‘‘workforce issues’’. 

We will work actively with the Committee to identify other issues that will impact 

workers. From worker privacy concerns, to the need for expanded driver training 

on new vehicles, to worker liability in the case of a crash, there is a long list of 

topics that must be examined. Each one poses its own challenge to the driving workforce, and each must be scrutinized in detail so that we can create policies to address them before, not after, this technology is rolled out. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

KEN HALL

Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers becoming ‘‘more 

like airline pilots’’, and keeping an eye on the fleet and managing various aspects 

of the trucking experience. While I’m pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different 

role, I do want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New 

Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking industry. What 

kinds of job training and re-training should be available to these workers? What is 

the role of industry in helping us alleviate these challenges? 

Answer. Senator Hassan, while I’m also pleased to hear manufactures say there 

will be a continued role for a driver, they can be of immediate help by explaining 

what exactly that new role will be. They allude to these other responsibilities a driver will have when in the truck, without ever going into any detail. 

The examples they give, like fleet management or dispatching, are not particularly realistic. Drivers in big fleets don’t tend to have much familiarity with that 

side of the business, and assigning these jobs to a driver wouldn’t fit into the structure of most large companies. If those are indeed the new job functions that a driver 

will be performing, industry must make crystal clear what the new expectations of 

their employees are and provide in depth training. They must also convey to Congress and Safety regulators how a driver would be able to actively monitor the 

truck’s self-driving technology while also performing those new job tasks. Airline pilots are constantly monitoring autopilot technology even when a plane is ‘‘flying 

itself’’. We need to make sure that a driver is able to do the same. They can’t be 

overloaded with these new responsibilities in a way that could compromise the safety of the vehicle’s operation. 

What’s more, if those manufactures are wrong, and drivers are not needed in the 

future, there are massive hurdles that you should be conscious of when it comes to 

retraining people in this profession. The nature of a truck driver’s job usually has 

them out on the road all day, or for multiple days on end. That makes retraining 

difficult. There aren’t usually a significant number of drivers in one centralized location throughout the day who can be pulled into a classroom or other workshop setting for instruction. 

To address this, employees must be given days or weeks off, with pay, to complete 

any comprehensive retraining. As I’m sure you would agree, we cannot accept a sitVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34306.TXT JACKIE
89 

uation where millions of drivers are expected to be retrained on their own dime, or 

after they’ve already been kicked to the curb. It will likely be incumbent on Congress to compel companies to share in this sacrifice and look out for your constituents. Our experience shows that companies are unlikely to do this voluntarily without being compelled to do so. 

Æ