What are other trucking groups pitching for the next highway bill?

As we enter 2026, the talk of a new highway bill will only increase.

You probably know most of OOIDA’s priorities, such as funding for truck parking, broker transparency, increased entry-level driver training standards, hours-of-service flexibility and restroom access for truck drivers.

Of course, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association’s team in Washington, D.C., is in lawmakers’ ears about these issues.

But what are the other trucking groups telling members of Congress? What are the items that OOIDA and individual truckers are going to have to push back against so that they don’t end up in the next highway bill?

This past fall, trucking groups and individuals submitted comments about their highway bill priorities to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Some of those opposing requests include increasing truck size and weight limits, lowering the interstate driving age to 18, creating an easier path for autonomous trucks, as well as mandating unique electronic identifiers, side underride guards and hair testing.

Bigger trucks

Although OOIDA, the Truckload Carriers Association, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety all oppose efforts to increase the maximum truck size and weight, the provision remains a priority for the American Trucking Associations.

The current weight limit is 80,000 pounds. In recent years, there have been efforts in Congress to increase the limit to 91,000 pounds.

During a House hearing in March, the Shipper Coalition’s Ryan Lindsey characterized the increase as “modest.”

“One such proposal is a pilot program to modestly increasing the gross-vehicle-weight limit on the interstate system from the current limit of 80,000 pounds to 91,000 pounds or the bridge formula limit, whichever is lower, for vehicles while operating in the program,” Lindsey said. “This proposal would impose important conditions on participation that protect the public interest, including the addition of the extra axle, weight distribution requirements of the bridge formula and per-axle limits.”

ATA’s comments to the DOT indicated support for the Variance Act (HR2920, S2108) and the CARS Act (HR2948). All of the bills involve weight increases.

OOIDA, meanwhile, believes such increases are a losing proposition for small-business truckers.

“OOIDA opposes controversial proposals to increase the size and weight of CMVs, which would reduce safety and adversely impact small trucking businesses,” the Association wrote. “In fact, allowing bigger and heavier trucks on our roads would only benefit shippers and a handful of large corporate motor carriers.”

Younger drivers

Listed among ATA’s workforce development priorities submitted in 2025 was a continued effort to allow under-21 drivers to operate in interstate commerce. Currently, drivers as young as 18 can operate intrastate but are not allowed to cross state lines.

ATA contended the change was needed due to a supposed driver shortage.

OOIDA, conversely, contends not only that there is no driver shortage but also that allowing a kid fresh out of high school to operate a tractor-trailer from Florida to Washington would produce negative safety outcomes.

Instead, OOIDA believes lawmakers should consider establishing a 150-mile radius for younger drivers that would allow them to cross state lines.

“The solution to this problem is not suddenly permitting that inexperienced driver to cross the country without limitations, entering terrain and experiencing elements they find unfamiliar and have not been trained to handle safely,” OOIDA wrote.

Paving the way for driverless trucks

ATA also wants Congress to include the America Drives Act (HR4661) in the next highway bill.

The legislation introduced by Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., would preempt state laws pertaining to autonomous commercial vehicles while supporting the deployment and regulation of autonomous vehicles in interstate commerce.

If this proposal becomes law, states would not be allowed to prohibit the operation of commercial motor vehicles with Level 4 or Level 5 automated driving systems based on the absence of a human occupant.

“HR4661 would similarly push the deployment of AV trucks without establishing the necessary federal oversight to prioritize safety performance over private investment returns,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer wrote in comments. “OOIDA supports mandatory testing, safety and crash-reporting requirements that will provide the public with direct and easy access to information about AV performance.”

Alternative drug testing

ATA and the Truckload Carriers Association want hair testing to be permitted as an alternative to urine testing for drug screening in the trucking industry.

“We ask that the U.S. DOT and Health and Human Services finalize and approve hair testing as an accepted alternative testing method without further delay,” TCA wrote.

OOIDA said there are still too many unanswered questions regarding hair testing.

“We do know hair testing can lead to false positives because of environmental contamination and the interference of cosmetic treatment on the analysis of hair,”

OOIDA wrote. “Variances in hair types have also posed difficulties in standardizing drug testing. Hair shape, size, color, texture, formation and other qualities vary by race, sex, age and position on the scalp. Not surprisingly, all these limitations have led to discriminatory employment practices.”

Trackers on truckers?

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance advocated for universal electronic vehicle identifiers to be required.

“The universal electronic vehicle identifier will aid inspectors in selecting the vehicles on the roadway that are most in need of an inspection or intervention,” CVSA wrote in comments signed by Executive Director Collin B. Mooney. “For example, a system that uses the universal electronic vehicle identifier could flag vehicles that are operating under a federal or state out-of-service order.”

Opponents of the requirement refer to it as “Trackers on Truckers.”

“Truckers strongly oppose the CVSA proposal to mandate the use of Universal Electronic Identifiers …” OOIDA wrote. “Our members have been extremely clear that this concept is an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy, as well as an overly costly and burdensome requirement that does nothing to improve their efficiency or safety. Due to the absence of any research demonstrating how the use of UEI technology would improve safety, the motivation for pursuing this mandate appears to be nothing more than adding convenience for enforcement agencies.”

Mandatory side underride guards

The Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety are continuing their push for a side underride guard mandate into the next highway bill.

“This critical safety equipment can prevent a passenger vehicle from traveling underneath a trailer during a crash,” the group wrote. “Yet, for decades the federal safety standards for rear underride guards were woefully outdated.”

OOIDA said that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has consistently concluded that a mandate would be impractical and cost-prohibitive.

“Truckers hold a number of concerns about mandating underride equipment, specifically side underride guards,” OOIDA wrote. “These include operational and safety challenges regarding rail-crossings, loading docks and low ground clearances, as well as equipment damage resulting from curbs, roundabouts, speed bumps and other highway features. Additionally, there are no commercially available side underride guards that have demonstrated a capability to fully prevent passenger compartment intrusion among passenger vehicles in highway driving conditions, raising serious concerns about their purported efficacy and benefits.” LL