[House Report 118-217]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                      {     118-217

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

 
TO AMEND TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE A HYDROGEN POWERED 
   VEHICLE TO EXCEED CERTAIN WEIGHT LIMITS ON THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 
                     SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 September 26, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Graves of Missouri, from the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3447]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 3447) to amend title 23, United 
States Code, to authorize a hydrogen powered vehicle to exceed 
certain weight limits on the Interstate Highway System, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose of Legislation...........................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
Legislative History and Consideration............................     3
Committee Votes..................................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
  Benefits.......................................................     9
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     9
Preemption Clarification.........................................     9
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     9
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    10
Section-By-Section Analysis of The Legislation...................    10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    10

                         Purpose of Legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 3447 is to create parity for hydrogen 
as an alternative fuel for use in Commercial Motor Vehicle 
(CMV) engines, giving companies more choices when moving 
freight throughout our Nation's Supply Chain.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Notwithstanding legislative exemptions, the Federal Bridge 
Formula, enacted in 1975, sets the weight-to-length ratio of a 
CMV when crossing a bridge. This can be accomplished by 
spreading weight over additional axles or by increasing the 
distance between axles.\1\ In addition to Bridge Formula weight 
limits, Federal law states that single axles are limited to 
20,000 pounds, and axles spaced more than 40 inches, and not 
more than 96 inches apart (tandem axles), are limited to 34,000 
pounds. Overall, gross vehicle weight (GVW) is limited to 
80,000 pounds.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\United States Dep't of Transp., Fed. Hwy. Admin., Bridge Formula 
Weights, (Aug. 2019), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/
publications/brdg_frm_wghts/.
    \2\Id.; see also 23 U.S.C. Sec. 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As technology has developed, Congress has provided 
legislative increases for the maximum GVW of a CMV if powered 
by certain alternative sources of fuel. The Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-94) allowed 
CMVs to have a maximum GVW of up to 82,000 pounds if operated 
by an engine primarily fueled by natural gas. Additionally, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-6) allowed 
the same increase in maximum GCW to CMVs primarily powered by 
electric battery power.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Memorandum from Martin C. Knopp, Assoc. Adm'r Fed. Hwy. Admin., 
to Division Adm'rs, Fed. Hwy. Admin., (Oct. 25, 2019), available at 
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/pol_plng_finance/policy/fastact/
tswprovisions2019/tswprovisions2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6)(A) of the 
118th Congress, the following hearing was used to develop or 
consider H.R. 3447:
    On Wednesday, February 1, 2023, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing entitled, 
``The State of Transportation Infrastructure and Supply Chain 
Challenges.'' The hearing provided an opportunity for Members 
of the Committee to discuss the current state of our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure, the implementation of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58), and 
receive updates on North American supply chain challenges. 
Members received testimony from Mr. Chris Spear, President and 
Chief Executive Officer at American Trucking Associations 
(ATA); Mr. Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer 
at the Association of American Railroads (AAR); Mr. Jeff Firth, 
President of Hamilton Construction on behalf of Associated 
General Contractors of America (AGC); Mr. Roger Guenther, 
Executive Director, Port Houston; and Mr. Greg Regan, President 
of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD). The 
witnesses testified about the need to address supply chain 
issues, including varying truck weight concerns.

                 Legislative History and Consideration

    H.R. 3447, ``To amend title 23, United States Code, to 
authorize a hydrogen powered vehicle to exceed certain weight 
limits on the Interstate Highway System, and for other 
purposes,'' was introduced in the United States House of 
Representatives on May 17, 2023, by Mr. Stanton and referred to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, H.R. 3447 was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. The 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit was discharged from 
further consideration of H.R. 3447 on May 23, 2023.
    The Committee considered H.R. 3447 on May 23, 2023, and 
ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a 
favorable recommendation, without amendment, by recorded vote 
of 55 yeas to 5 nays.
    The following amendments were offered:
    An amendment to H.R. 3447, offered by Mr. Perry (177) 
(#17A); Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following: SEC. 1. NATURAL GAS VEHICLES. Section 127(s) of 
title 23, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the 
subsection heading by striking ``GAS AND ELECTRIC BATTERY 
VEHICLES'' and inserting ``GAS VEHICLES''; and (2) by striking 
``or powered primarily by means of electric battery power'' 
before ``may exceed''.; was NOT AGREED TO by voice vote.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote 
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for 
and against.

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 017

    On: agreeing to Final passage of H.R. 3447
    Agreed to: 55 yeas and 5 nays

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Member                           Vote                    Member                    Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Graves of MO................................          Yea   Mr. Larsen of WA..................          Yea
Mr. Crawford....................................          Yea   Ms. Norton........................          Nay
Mr. Webster of FL...............................          Nay   Mrs. Napolitano...................  ............
Mr. Massie......................................          Nay   Mr. Cohen.........................          Yea
Mr. Perry.......................................          Nay   Mr. Garamendi.....................          Yea
Mr. Babin.......................................          Yea   Mr. Johnson of GA.................          Yea
Mr. Graves of LA................................  ............  Mr. Carson........................          Yea
Mr. Rouzer......................................          Yea   Ms. Titus.........................          Yea
Mr. Bost........................................          Yea   Mr. Huffman.......................          Yea
Mr. LaMalfa.....................................          Yea   Ms. Brownley......................  ............
Mr. Westerman...................................          Yea   Ms. Wilson of FL..................          Yea
Mr. Mast........................................          Yea   Mr. Payne.........................          Yea
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon.............................          Yea   Mr. DeSaulnier....................          Yea
Mr. Stauber.....................................          Yea   Mr. Carbajal......................          Yea
Mr. Burchett....................................          Nay   Mr. Stanton.......................          Yea
Mr. Johnson of SD...............................          Yea   Mr. Allred........................          Yea
Mr. Van Drew....................................          Yea   Ms. Davids of KS..................          Yea
Mr. Nehls.......................................  ............  Mr. Garcia of IL..................          Yea
Mr. Gooden of TX................................          Yea   Mr. Pappas........................          Yea
Mr. Mann........................................          Yea   Mr. Moulton.......................          Yea
Mr. Owens.......................................          Yea   Mr. Auchincloss...................          Yea
Mr. Yakym.......................................          Yea   Ms. Strickland....................  ............
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.............................          Yea   Mr. Carter of LA..................          Yea
Mr. Edwards.....................................          Yea   Mr. Ryan..........................          Yea
Mr. Kean of NJ..................................          Yea   Mrs. Peltola......................          Yea
Mr. D'Esposito..................................          Yea   Mr. Menendez......................          Yea
Mr. Burlison....................................          Yea   Ms. Hoyle of OR...................          Yea
Mr. James.......................................          Yea   Mrs. Sykes........................          Yea
Mr. Van Orden...................................          Yea   Ms. Scholten......................          Yea
Mr. Williams of NY..............................          Yea   Mrs. Foushee......................          Yea
Mr. Molinaro....................................          Yea
Mr. Collins.....................................          Yea
Mr. Ezell.......................................          Yea
Mr. Duarte......................................          Yea
Mr. Bean of FL..................................          Yea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3447 from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Summary: On May 23, 2023, the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure considered multiple pieces of 
legislation. This document provides estimates for 12 bills that 
were ordered reported.
    The bills would, among other things, direct the Department 
of Transportation (DOT) or the Federal Maritime Commission to:
           Prioritize grant applications for projects 
        that would improve the resiliency of the supply chain 
        and revise the permitting process for certain port, 
        airport, and pipeline projects, with the goal of 
        accelerating approval;
           Change restrictions on the type, size, and 
        weight of vehicles that can travel on the Interstate 
        highways; and
           Require data collection and new studies 
        aimed at improving the safety and efficiency of 
        domestic transportation systems.
    Estimated Federal cost: The bills' estimated budgetary 
effects are shown in Table 1. This cost estimate does not 
include any effects of interaction among the bills. If all 12 
bills were combined and enacted as a single piece of 
legislation, the effects could be different from the sum of the 
separate estimates, although CBO expects that any differences 
would be small. The bills' costs fall within budget function 
400 (transportation).

                      TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN LEGISLATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2023     2024     2025     2026     2027     2028   2023-2028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
H.R. 1500, Intelligent Transportation
 Integration Act:
    Estimated Authorization....................        0        6        6        6        6        7        31
    Estimated Outlays..........................        0        5        6        6        6        7        30
H.R. 1836, Ocean Shipping Reform Implementation
 Act of 2023:
    Estimated Authorization....................        0        1        1        1        2        2         7
    Estimated Outlays..........................        0        1        1        1        2        2         7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO estimates that H.R. 915, H.R. 2948, H.R. 3013, H.R. 3316, H.R. 3318, H.R. 3365, H.R. 3372, H.R. 3395, and
  H.R. 3447, would each increase spending subject to appropriation by less than $500,000 in every year and over
  the 2023-2028 period.
CBO estimates that H.R. 3316, H.R. 3317, and H.R. 3365 would each affect direct spending by less than $500,000
  in every year and over the 2023-2033 period.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bills will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2023 and that 
the authorized and estimated amounts will be appropriated each 
year. Outlays for discretionary programs are estimated based on 
historical spending patterns for similar programs.
    As discussed below, one bill would affect direct spending 
only and two bills would affect both direct spending and 
spending subject to appropriation. CBO estimates that the 
effects of each bill on direct spending would be insignificant 
over the 2023-2033 period. The other bills would affect 
spending subject to appropriation alone. None of the bills 
would affect revenues.
    Bill that affects direct spending only: CBO estimates that 
just one bill would have an insignificant effect on direct 
spending and no effects on revenues or spending subject to 
appropriation.
    H.R. 3317, the Rolling Stock Protection Act, would remove 
an exemption from current law that allows a small number of 
public transit agencies to procure rolling stock from entities 
owned, controlled, or associated with certain countries. CBO 
estimates that enacting the bill could change the pace of 
spending for amounts previously appropriated for the Federal 
Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grants, relative to 
current law. (Those amounts could include funds that were 
designated as an emergency requirement under the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act.) However, because few transit agencies 
would be affected, CBO expects that any changes in spending 
would total less than $500,000 in any year and over the 2023-
2033 period.
    Bills that affect direct spending and spending subject to 
appropriation: CBO estimates that two bills could have 
insignificant effects on direct spending and spending subject 
to appropriation but would not affect revenues.
    H.R. 3316, a bill to amend titles 46 and 49, United States 
Code, to streamline the environmental review process for major 
projects, and for other purposes, would require DOT to revise 
the permitting process for certain port, airport, and pipeline 
projects, with the aim of making the process more efficient. 
The bill also would require DOT to maintain a database of 
projects and to update agency regulations.
    Under current law, if an agency fails to meet certain 
permitting deadlines, specified amounts of funding would be 
rescinded from that agency's account. Because the bill would 
expand the number of projects subject to those conditions, 
enacting H.R. 3316 could reduce direct spending. CBO estimates 
that any effect would not be significant over the 2023-2033 
period because of the small number of projects likely to be 
affected.
    CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase 
spending subject to appropriation by less than $500,000 over 
the 2023-2028 period, mostly for administrative activities.
    H.R. 3365, the Supply Chain Improvement Act, would direct 
DOT to prioritize consideration of grant applications for 
projects aimed at improving resiliency in the supply chain, 
unless those projects support the use of electric vehicles. In 
particular, the requirement would apply to grants under the 
Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects 
program (known as the INFRA grant program) and the National 
Infrastructure Project Assistance program. The bill would 
increase the share of INFRA grants that could be used for 
intermodal freight rail projects.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $21 
billion for those two programs over the 2022-2026 period. (The 
appropriated amounts were designated as an emergency 
requirement.) CBO estimates that H.R. 3365 could alter the 
spending patterns for those previously appropriated amounts, 
which would be recorded as changes in direct spending. CBO 
estimates that, on net, those changes would amount to less than 
$500,000 in any year and over the 2023-2033 period.
    H.R. 3365 also would direct the Government Accountability 
Office to report on the effects of electric vehicles in several 
areas, including infrastructure integrity and grid security. 
The bill also would prevent agencies from prioritizing any 
project seeking to use grants that would support electric 
vehicles until a subsequent act of Congress has been passed 
allowing such prioritization. Using information about similar 
reports, CBO estimates that the report would cost less than 
$500,000 over the 2023-2028 period; such spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated amounts.
    Bills that affect spending subject to appropriation by a 
significant amount: CBO estimates that two bills would affect 
spending subject to appropriation by more than $500,000 over 
the 2023-2028 period. The costs for those two bills are shown 
in Table 1. Neither bill would affect direct spending or 
revenues.
    H.R. 1500, the Intelligent Transportation Integration Act, 
would require DOT to purchase certain data from public and 
private entities to help improve the department's management of 
traffic and transportation infrastructure. DOT would be 
required to report to the Congress annually on those 
activities. Using information from the agency about similar 
contracting activities, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
1500 would cost $30 million over the 2023-2028 period, assuming 
appropriation of the estimated amounts.
    H.R. 1836, the Ocean Shipping Reform Implementation Act of 
2023, would create additional administrative and reporting 
requirements for the Federal Maritime Commission, including a 
requirement to issue two new regulations and publish a study. 
The bill also would establish two advisory committees to assist 
the commission in creating policies to ensure competitiveness, 
reliability, and efficiency in international ocean shipping.
    Using information on similar administrative requirements 
and accounting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 1836 would cost $7 million over the 2023-2028 
period; any spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated amounts.
    Bills that affect spending subject to appropriation by an 
insignificant amount: CBO estimates that implementing the 
following seven bills would cost less than $500,000 each over 
the 2023-2028 period. None of the bills would affect direct 
spending or revenues.
    H.R. 915, the Motor Carrier Safety Selection Standard Act, 
would create new standards for certain motor carriers that 
transport goods, require DOT to update regulations to be 
consistent with those standards, and direct the department to 
stipulate the method for revoking a motor carrier's 
registration.
    H.R. 2948, the CARS Act, would require states to allow 
certain stinger-steered automobile transporters to operate on 
Interstate highways. (Such transporters have a fifth wheel 
located below the rear-most axle of the power unit.)
    H.R. 3013, the LICENSE Act of 2023, would require DOT to 
issue regulations updating the qualifications to be a 
commercial driver's license examiner. The bill also would allow 
states to administer those tests to out-of-state applicants.
    H.R. 3318, a bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
establish an axle weight tolerance for certain commercial motor 
vehicles transporting dry bulk goods, and for other purposes, 
would increase the maximum weight per axle that a commercial 
vehicle transporting dry bulk goods can carry on an Interstate 
highway. The bill would not change the overall gross vehicle 
weight limits for such vehicles.
    H.R. 3372, a bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
establish a safety data collection program for certain 6-axle 
vehicles, and for other purposes, would create a pilot program 
allowing certain six-axle vehicles to be operated on Interstate 
highways. Under the bill, participating states would issue 
permits by vehicle or by group of vehicles that would specify 
acceptable routes and require permit holders to report on 
accidents and other details. The program would be discontinued 
after five years, although DOT could extend the program for 
five years.
    H.R. 3395, the U.S. Supply Chain Security Review Act of 
2023, would require the Federal Maritime Commission to study 
the effects of foreign ownership of domestic marine terminals 
on U.S. economic security and report those findings to the 
Congress.
    H.R. 3447, a bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
authorize a hydrogen powered vehicle to exceed certain weight 
limits on the Interstate Highway System, and for other 
purposes, would authorize hydrogen-powered vehicles to exceed 
certain weight limits specified under current law.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. Over the 2023-2033 period, CBO estimates that none of 
the bills would increase direct spending by more than $500,000.
    Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: 
None.
    Mandates: None.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Aaron Krupkin (for 
Federal Maritime Commission), Robert Reese (for Department of 
Transportation); Mandates: Brandon Lever.
    Estimate reviewed by: Susan Willie, Chief, Natural and 
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; Kathleen FitzGerald, 
Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
    Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director, 
Congressional Budget Office.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to allow 
vehicles fueled by hydrogen power to exceed the gross vehicle 
weight limit by 2,000 lbs.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision 
of H.R. 3447 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
Federal government known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, a program that was included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

   Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

    In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule 
XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee finds that H.R. 3447 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

    This section provides that section 127(s) of title 23, 
United States Code, is amended to include hydrogen fuel cells, 
therefore providing that they may exceed the GVW limit on a 
power unit by up to 2,000 pounds. This would create parity 
between hydrogen, natural gas, and electric battery powered CMV 
engines, for a maximum GVW limit of 82,000 pounds.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 127. Vehicle weight limitations--Interstate System

  (a) In General.--
          (1) The Secretary shall withhold 50 percent of the 
        apportionment of a State under section 104(b)(1) in any 
        fiscal year in which the State does not permit the use 
        of The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and 
        Defense Highways within its boundaries by vehicles with 
        a weight of twenty thousand pounds carried on any one 
        axle, including enforcement tolerances, or with a 
        tandem axle weight of thirty-four thousand pounds, 
        including enforcement tolerances, or a gross weight of 
        at least eighty thousand pounds for vehicle 
        combinations of five axles or more.
          (2) However, the maximum gross weight to be allowed 
        by any State for vehicles using The Dwight D. 
        Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
        shall be twenty thousand pounds carried on one axle, 
        including enforcement tolerances, and a tandem axle 
        weight of thirty-four thousand pounds, including 
        enforcement tolerances and with an overall maximum 
        gross weight, including enforcement tolerances, on a 
        group of two or more consecutive axles produced by 
        application of the following formula:
LN
W=500 AXXXXX+12N+36B
N-1
where W equals overall gross weight on any group of two or more 
consecutive axles to the nearest five hundred pounds, L equals 
distance in feet between the extreme of any group of two or 
more consecutive axles, and N equals number of axles in group 
under consideration, except that two consecutive sets of tandem 
axles may carry a gross load of thirty-four thousand pounds 
each providing the overall distance between the first and last 
axles of such consecutive sets of tandem axles (1) is thirty-
six feet or more, or (2) in the case of a motor vehicle hauling 
any tank trailer, dump trailer, or ocean transport container 
before September 1, 1989, is 30 feet or more: Provided, That 
such overall gross weight may not exceed eighty thousand 
pounds, including all enforcement tolerances, except for 
vehicles using Interstate Route 29 between Sioux City, Iowa, 
and the border between Iowa and South Dakota or vehicles using 
Interstate Route 129 between Sioux City, Iowa, and the border 
between Iowa and Nebraska, and except for those vehicles and 
loads which cannot be easily dismantled or divided and which 
have been issued special permits in accordance with applicable 
State laws, or the corresponding maximum weights permitted for 
vehicles using the public highways of such State under laws or 
regulations established by appropriate State authority in 
effect on July 1, 1956, except in the case of the overall gross 
weight of any group of two or more consecutive axles on any 
vehicle (other than a vehicle comprised of a motor vehicle 
hauling any tank trailer, dump trailer, or ocean transport 
container on or after September 1, 1989), on the date of 
enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974, 
whichever is the greater.
          (3) Any amount which is withheld from apportionment 
        to any State pursuant to the foregoing provisions shall 
        lapse if not released and obligated within the 
        availability period specified in section 118(b).
          (4) This section shall not be construed to deny 
        apportionment to any State allowing the operation 
        within such State of any vehicles or combinations 
        thereof, other than vehicles or combinations subject to 
        subsection (d) of this section, which the State 
        determines could be lawfully operated within such State 
        on July 1, 1956, except in the case of the overall 
        gross weight of any group of two or more consecutive 
        axles, on the date of enactment of the Federal-Aid 
        Highway Amendments of 1974.
          (5) With respect to the State of Hawaii, laws or 
        regulations in effect on February 1, 1960, shall be 
        applicable for the purposes of this section in lieu of 
        those in effect on July 1, 1956.
          (6) With respect to the State of Colorado, vehicles 
        designed to carry 2 or more precast concrete panels 
        shall be considered a nondivisible load.
          (7) With respect to the State of Michigan, laws or 
        regulations in effect on May 1, 1982, shall be 
        applicable for the purposes of this subsection.
          (8) With respect to the State of Maryland, laws and 
        regulations in effect on June 1, 1993, shall be 
        applicable for the purposes of this subsection.
          (9) The State of Louisiana may allow, by special 
        permit, the operation of vehicles with a gross vehicle 
        weight of up to 100,000 pounds for the hauling of 
        sugarcane during the harvest season, not to exceed 100 
        days annually.
          (10) With respect to Interstate Routes 89, 93, and 95 
        in the State of New Hampshire--
                  (A) State laws (including regulations) 
                concerning vehicle weight limitations that were 
                in effect on January 1, 1987, and are 
                applicable to State highways other than the 
                Interstate System, shall be applicable in lieu 
                of the requirements of this subsection; and
                  (B) effective June 30, 2016, a combination of 
                truck-tractor and dump trailer equipped with 6 
                axles or more with a gross weight of up to 
                99,000 pounds shall be permitted if the 
                distances between the extreme axles, excluding 
                the steering axle, is 28 feet or more.
          (11)(A) With respect to all portions of the 
        Interstate Highway System in the State of Maine, laws 
        (including regulations) of that State concerning 
        vehicle weight limitations applicable to other State 
        highways shall be applicable in lieu of the 
        requirements under this subsection.
          (B) With respect to all portions of the Interstate 
        Highway System in the State of Vermont, laws (including 
        regulations) of that State concerning vehicle weight 
        limitations applicable to other State highways shall be 
        applicable in lieu of the requirements under this 
        subsection.
          (12) Heavy duty vehicles.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) 
                and (C), in order to promote reduction of fuel 
                use and emissions because of engine idling, the 
                maximum gross vehicle weight limit and the axle 
                weight limit for any heavy-duty vehicle 
                equipped with an idle reduction technology 
                shall be increased by a quantity necessary to 
                compensate for the additional weight of the 
                idle reduction system.
                  (B) Maximum weight increase.--The weight 
                increase under subparagraph (A) shall be not 
                greater than 550 pounds.
                  (C) Proof.--On request by a regulatory agency 
                or law enforcement agency, the vehicle operator 
                shall provide proof (through demonstration or 
                certification) that--
                          (i) the idle reduction technology is 
                        fully functional at all times; and
                          (ii) the 550-pound gross weight 
                        increase is not used for any purpose 
                        other than the use of idle reduction 
                        technology described in subparagraph 
                        (A).
          (13) Milk products.--A vehicle carrying fluid milk 
        products shall be considered a load that cannot be 
        easily dismantled or divided.
  (b) Reasonable Access.--No State may enact or enforce any law 
denying reasonable access to motor vehicles subject to this 
title to and from the Interstate Highway System to terminals 
and facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest.
  (c) Ocean Transport Container Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``ocean transport container'' has the meaning 
given the term ``freight container'' by the International 
Standards Organization in Series 1, Freight Containers, 3rd 
Edition (reference number IS0668-1979(E)) as in effect on the 
date of the enactment of this subsection.
  (d) Longer Combination Vehicles.--
          (1) Prohibition.--
                  (A) General continuation rule.--A longer 
                combination vehicle may continue to operate 
                only if the longer combination vehicle 
                configuration type was authorized by State 
                officials pursuant to State statute or 
                regulation conforming to this section and in 
                actual lawful operation on a regular or 
                periodic basis (including seasonal operations) 
                on or before June 1, 1991, or pursuant to 
                section 335 of the Department of Transportation 
                and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991 
                (104 Stat. 2186).
                  (B) Applicability of state laws and 
                regulations.--All such operations shall 
                continue to be subject to, at the minimum, all 
                State statutes, regulations, limitations and 
                conditions, including, but not limited to, 
                routing-specific and configuration-specific 
                designations and all other restrictions, in 
                force on June 1, 1991; except that subject to 
                such regulations as may be issued by the 
                Secretary pursuant to paragraph (5) of this 
                subsection, the State may make minor 
                adjustments of a temporary and emergency nature 
                to route designations and vehicle operating 
                restrictions in effect on June 1, 1991, for 
                specific safety purposes and road construction.
                  (C) Wyoming.--In addition to those vehicles 
                allowed under subparagraph (A), the State of 
                Wyoming may allow the operation of additional 
                vehicle configurations not in actual operation 
                on June 1, 1991, but authorized by State law 
                not later than November 3, 1992, if such 
                vehicle configurations comply with the single 
                axle, tandem axle, and bridge formula limits 
                set forth in subsection (a) and do not exceed 
                117,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
                  (D) Ohio.--In addition to vehicles which the 
                State of Ohio may continue to allow to be 
                operated under subparagraph (A), such State may 
                allow longer combination vehicles with 3 cargo 
                carrying units of 281/2 feet each (not 
                including the truck tractor) not in actual 
                operation on June 1, 1991, to be operated 
                within its boundaries on the 1-mile segment of 
                Ohio State Route 7 which begins at and is south 
                of exit 16 of the Ohio Turnpike.
                  (E) Alaska.--In addition to vehicles which 
                the State of Alaska may continue to allow to be 
                operated under subparagraph (A), such State may 
                allow the operation of longer combination 
                vehicles which were not in actual operation on 
                June 1, 1991, but which were in actual 
                operation prior to July 5, 1991.
                  (F) Iowa.--In addition to vehicles that the 
                State of Iowa may continue to allow to be 
                operated under subparagraph (A), the State may 
                allow longer combination vehicles that were not 
                in actual operation on June 1, 1991, to be 
                operated on Interstate Route 29 between Sioux 
                City, Iowa, and the border between Iowa and 
                South Dakota or Interstate Route 129 between 
                Sioux City, Iowa, and the border between Iowa 
                and Nebraska.
          (2) Additional state restrictions.--
                  (A) In general.--Nothing in this subsection 
                shall prevent any State from further 
                restricting in any manner or prohibiting the 
                operation of longer combination vehicles 
                otherwise authorized under this subsection; 
                except that such restrictions or prohibitions 
                shall be consistent with the requirements of 
                sections 31111-31114 of title 49.
                  (B) Minor adjustments.--Any State further 
                restricting or prohibiting the operations of 
                longer combination vehicles or making minor 
                adjustments of a temporary and emergency nature 
                as may be allowed pursuant to regulations 
                issued by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph 
                (5) of this subsection, shall, within 30 days, 
                advise the Secretary of such action, and the 
                Secretary shall publish a notice of such action 
                in the Federal Register.
          (3) Publication of list.--
                  (A) Submission to secretary.--Within 60 days 
                of the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection, each State (i) shall submit to the 
                Secretary for publication in the Federal 
                Register a complete list of (I) all operations 
                of longer combination vehicles being conducted 
                as of June 1, 1991, pursuant to State statutes 
                and regulations; (II) all limitations and 
                conditions, including, but not limited to, 
                routing-specific and configuration-specific 
                designations and all other restrictions, 
                governing the operation of longer combination 
                vehicles otherwise prohibited under this 
                subsection; and (III) such statutes, 
                regulations, limitations, and conditions; and 
                (ii) shall submit to the Secretary copies of 
                such statutes, regulations, limitations, and 
                conditions.
                  (B) Interim list.--Not later than 90 days 
                after the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection, the Secretary shall publish an 
                interim list in the Federal Register, 
                consisting of all information submitted 
                pursuant to subparagraph (A). The Secretary 
                shall review for accuracy all information 
                submitted by the States pursuant to 
                subparagraph (A) and shall solicit and consider 
                public comment on the accuracy of all such 
                information.
                  (C) Limitation.--No statute or regulation 
                shall be included on the list submitted by a 
                State or published by the Secretary merely on 
                the grounds that it authorized, or could have 
                authorized, by permit or otherwise, the 
                operation of longer combination vehicles, not 
                in actual operation on a regular or periodic 
                basis on or before June 1, 1991.
                  (D) Final list.--Except as modified pursuant 
                to paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the 
                list shall be published as final in the Federal 
                Register not later than 180 days after the date 
                of the enactment of this subsection. In 
                publishing the final list, the Secretary shall 
                make any revisions necessary to correct 
                inaccuracies identified under subparagraph (B). 
                After publication of the final list, longer 
                combination vehicles may not operate on the 
                Interstate System except as provided in the 
                list.
                  (E) Review and correction procedure.--The 
                Secretary, on his or her own motion or upon a 
                request by any person (including a State), 
                shall review the list issued by the Secretary 
                pursuant to subparagraph (D). If the Secretary 
                determines there is cause to believe that a 
                mistake was made in the accuracy of the final 
                list, the Secretary shall commence a proceeding 
                to determine whether the list published 
                pursuant to subparagraph (D) should be 
                corrected. If the Secretary determines that 
                there is a mistake in the accuracy of the list 
                the Secretary shall correct the publication 
                under subparagraph (D) to reflect the 
                determination of the Secretary.
          (4) Longer combination vehicle defined.--For purposes 
        of this section, the term ``longer combination 
        vehicle'' means any combination of a truck tractor and 
        2 or more trailers or semitrailers which operates on 
        the Interstate System at a gross vehicle weight greater 
        than 80,000 pounds.
          (5) Regulations regarding minor adjustments.--Not 
        later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
        this subsection, the Secretary shall issue regulations 
        establishing criteria for the States to follow in 
        making minor adjustments under paragraph (1)(B).
  (e) Operation of Certain Specialized Hauling Vehicles on 
Interstate Route 68.--The single axle, tandem axle, and bridge 
formula limits set forth in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
the operation on Interstate Route 68 in Garrett and Allegany 
Counties, Maryland, of any specialized vehicle equipped with a 
steering axle and a tridem axle and used for hauling coal, 
logs, and pulpwood if such vehicle is of a type of vehicle as 
was operating in such counties on United States Route 40 or 48 
for such purpose on August 1, 1991.
  (f) Operation of Certain Specialized Hauling Vehicles on 
Certain Wisconsin Highways.--If the 104-mile portion of 
Wisconsin State Route 78 and United States Route 51 between 
Interstate Route 94 near Portage, Wisconsin, and Wisconsin 
State Route 29 south of Wausau, Wisconsin, is designated as 
part of the Interstate System under section 103(c)(4)(A), the 
single axle weight, tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, 
and bridge formula limits set forth in subsection (a) shall not 
apply to the 104-mile portion with respect to the operation of 
any vehicle that could legally operate on the 104-mile portion 
before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
  (g) Operation of Certain Specialized Hauling Vehicles on 
Certain Pennsylvania Highways.--If the segment of United States 
Route 220 between Bedford and Bald Eagle, Pennsylvania, is 
designated as part of the Interstate System, the single axle 
weight, tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, and bridge 
formula limits set forth in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
that segment with respect to the operation of any vehicle which 
could have legally operated on that segment before the date of 
the enactment of this subsection.
  (h) Waiver for a Route in State of Maine During Periods of 
National Emergency.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with 
        the Secretary of Defense, may waive or limit the 
        application of any vehicle weight limit established 
        under this section with respect to the portion of 
        Interstate Route 95 in the State of Maine between 
        Augusta and Bangor for the purpose of making bulk 
        shipments of jet fuel to the Air National Guard Base at 
        Bangor International Airport during a period of 
        national emergency in order to respond to the effects 
        of the national emergency.
          (2) Applicability.--Emergency limits established 
        under paragraph (1) shall preempt any inconsistent 
        State vehicle weight limits.
  (i) Special Permits During Periods of National Emergency.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this section, a State may issue special permits 
        during an emergency to overweight vehicles and loads 
        that can easily be dismantled or divided if--
                  (A) the President has declared the emergency 
                to be a major disaster under the Robert T. 
                Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
                  (B) the permits are issued in accordance with 
                State law; and
                  (C) the permits are issued exclusively to 
                vehicles and loads that are delivering relief 
                supplies.
          (2) Expiration.--A permit issued under paragraph (1) 
        shall expire not later than 120 days after the date of 
        the declaration of emergency under subparagraph (A) of 
        that paragraph.
  (j) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Other Wisconsin 
Highways.--If any segment of the United States Route 41 
corridor, as described in section 1105(c)(57) of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is designated as 
a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that could operate 
legally on that segment before the date of such designation may 
continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any 
requirement under subsection (a).
  (k) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Mississippi Highways.--
If any segment of United States Route 78 in Mississippi from 
mile marker 0 to mile marker 113 is designated as part of the 
Interstate System, no limit established under this section may 
apply to that segment with respect to the operation of any 
vehicle that could have legally operated on that segment before 
such designation.
  (l) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Kentucky Highways.--
          (1) In general.--If any segment of highway described 
        in paragraph (2) is designated as a route on the 
        Interstate System, a vehicle that could operate legally 
        on that segment before the date of such designation may 
        continue to operate on that segment, without regard to 
        any requirement under subsection (a).
          (2) Description of highway segments.--The highway 
        segments referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
                  (A) Interstate Route 69 in Kentucky (formerly 
                the Wendell H. Ford (Western Kentucky) Parkway) 
                from the Interstate Route 24 Interchange, near 
                Eddyville, to the Edward T. Breathitt 
                (Pennyrile) Parkway Interchange.
                  (B) The Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) 
                Parkway (to be designated as Interstate Route 
                69) in Kentucky from the Wendell H. Ford 
                (Western Kentucky) Parkway Interchange to near 
                milepost 77, and on new alignment to an 
                interchange on the Audubon Parkway, if the 
                segment is designated as part of the Interstate 
                System.
          (3) Additional highway segments.--
                  (A) In general.--If any segment of highway 
                described in clauses (i) through (v) is 
                designated as a route of the Interstate System, 
                a vehicle that could operate legally on that 
                segment before the date of such designation may 
                continue to operate on that segment, without 
                regard to any requirement under subsection (a), 
                except that such vehicle shall not exceed a 
                gross vehicle weight of 120,000 pounds. The 
                highway segments referred to in this paragraph 
                are as follows:
                          (i) The William H. Natcher Parkway 
                        (to be designated as a spur of 
                        Interstate Route 65) from Interstate 
                        Route 65 in Bowling Green, Kentucky, to 
                        United States Route 60 in Owensboro, 
                        Kentucky.
                          (ii) The Julian M. Carroll (Purchase) 
                        Parkway (to be designated as Interstate 
                        Route 69) in Kentucky from the 
                        Tennessee state line to the interchange 
                        with Interstate Route 24, near Calvert 
                        City.
                          (iii) The Wendell H. Ford (Western 
                        Kentucky) Parkway (to be designated as 
                        a spur of Interstate Route 69) from the 
                        interchange with the William H. Natcher 
                        Parkway in Ohio County, Kentucky, west 
                        to the interchange of the Western 
                        Kentucky Parkway with the Edward T. 
                        Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway.
                          (iv) The Edward T. Breathitt 
                        (Pennyrile) Parkway (to be designated 
                        as a spur of Interstate Route 69) from 
                        Interstate 24, north to Interstate 69.
                          (v) The Louie B. Nunn Cumberland 
                        Expressway (to be designated as a spur 
                        of Interstate Route 65) from the 
                        interchange with Interstate Route 65 in 
                        Barren County, Kentucky, east to the 
                        interchange with United States Highway 
                        27 in Somerset, Kentucky.
                  (B) Nondivisible load or vehicle.--Nothing in 
                this paragraph shall prohibit the State from 
                issuing a permit for a nondivisible load or 
                vehicle with a gross vehicle weight that 
                exceeds 120,000 pounds.
  (m) Covered Heavy-duty Tow and Recovery Vehicles.--
          (1) In general.--The vehicle weight limitations set 
        forth in this section do not apply to a covered heavy-
        duty tow and recovery vehicle.
          (2) Covered heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicle 
        defined.--In this subsection, the term ``covered heavy-
        duty tow and recovery vehicle'' means a vehicle that--
                  (A) is transporting a disabled vehicle from 
                the place where the vehicle became disabled to 
                the nearest appropriate repair facility; and
                  (B) has a gross vehicle weight that is equal 
                to or exceeds the gross vehicle weight of the 
                disabled vehicle being transported.
  (n) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Highways in the State of 
Texas.--If any segment in the State of Texas of United States 
Route 59, United States Route 77, United States Route 281, 
United States Route 84, Texas State Highway 44, or another 
roadway is designated as Interstate Route 69, a vehicle that 
could operate legally on that segment before the date of the 
designation may continue to operate on that segment, without 
regard to any requirement under this section.
  (o) Certain Logging Vehicles in the State of Wisconsin.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall waive, with 
        respect to a covered logging vehicle, the application 
        of any vehicle weight limit established under this 
        section.
          (2) Covered logging vehicle defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``covered logging vehicle'' means 
        a vehicle that--
                  (A) is transporting raw or unfinished forest 
                products, including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or 
                wood chips;
                  (B) has a gross vehicle weight of not more 
                than 98,000 pounds;
                  (C) has not less than 6 axles; and
                  (D) is operating on a segment of Interstate 
                Route 39 in the State of Wisconsin from mile 
                marker 175.8 to mile marker 189.
  (p) Operation of Certain Specialized Vehicles on Certain 
Highways in the State of Arkansas.--If any segment of United 
States Route 63 between the exits for highways 14 and 75 in the 
State of Arkansas is designated as part of the Interstate 
System, the single axle weight, tandem axle weight, gross 
vehicle weight, and bridge formula limits under subsection (a) 
and the width limitation under section 31113(a) of title 49 
shall not apply to that segment with respect to the operation 
of any vehicle that could operate legally on that segment 
before the date of the designation.
  (q) Certain Logging Vehicles in the State of Minnesota.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall waive, with 
        respect to a covered logging vehicle, the application 
        of any vehicle weight limit established under this 
        section.
          (2) Covered logging vehicle defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``covered logging vehicle'' means 
        a vehicle that--
                  (A) is transporting raw or unfinished forest 
                products, including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or 
                wood chips;
                  (B) has a gross vehicle weight of not more 
                than 99,000 pounds;
                  (C) has not less than 6 axles; and
                  (D) is operating on a segment of Interstate 
                Route 35 in the State of Minnesota from mile 
                marker 235.4 to mile marker 259.552.
  (r) Emergency Vehicles.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a 
        State shall not enforce against an emergency vehicle a 
        vehicle weight limit (up to a maximum gross vehicle 
        weight of 86,000 pounds) of less than--
                  (A) 24,000 pounds on a single steering axle;
                  (B) 33,500 pounds on a single drive axle;
                  (C) 62,000 pounds on a tandem axle; or
                  (D) 52,000 pounds on a tandem rear drive 
                steer axle.
          (2) Emergency vehicle defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term ``emergency vehicle'' means a vehicle designed 
        to be used under emergency conditions--
                  (A) to transport personnel and equipment; and
                  (B) to support the suppression of fires and 
                mitigation of other hazardous situations.
  (s) Natural [Gas and Electric Battery Vehicles] Gas, Electric 
Battery Vehicles, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles.--A vehicle, 
if operated by an engine fueled primarily by natural gas or 
powered primarily by means of electric battery power, or fueled 
primarily by hydrogen fuel cells, or fueled or powered by a 
combination thereof, may exceed the weight limit on the power 
unit by up to 2,000 pounds (up to a maximum gross vehicle 
weight of 82,000 pounds) under this section.
  (t) Vehicles in Idaho.--A vehicle limited or prohibited under 
this section from operating on a segment of the Interstate 
System in the State of Idaho may operate on such a segment if 
such vehicle-
          (1) has a gross vehicle weight of 129,000 pounds or 
        less;
          (2) other than gross vehicle weight, complies with 
        the single axle, tandem axle, and bridge formula limits 
        set forth in subsection (a); and
          (3) is authorized to operate on such segment under 
        Idaho State law.
  (u) Vehicles in North Dakota.--A vehicle limited or 
prohibited under this section from operating on a segment of 
the Interstate System in the State of North Dakota may operate 
on such a segment if such vehicle--
          (1) has a gross vehicle weight of 129,000 pounds or 
        less;
          (2) other than gross vehicle weight, complies with 
        the single axle, tandem axle, and bridge formula limits 
        set forth in subsection (a); and
          (3) is authorized to operate on such segment under 
        North Dakota State law.
  (v) Operation of Vehicles on Certain North Carolina 
Highways.--If any segment in the State of North Carolina of 
United States Route 17, United States Route 29, United States 
Route 52, United States Route 64, United States Route 70, 
United States Route 74, United States Route 117, United States 
Route 220, United States Route 264, or United States Route 421 
is designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle 
that could operate legally on that segment before the date of 
such designation may continue to operate on that segment, 
without regard to any requirement under subsection (a).
  (w) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Oklahoma Highways.--If 
any segment of the highway referred to in paragraph (96) of 
section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032) is 
designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that 
could operate legally on that segment before the date of such 
designation may continue to operate on that segment, without 
any regard to any requirement under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  [all]