[House Report 118-352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-352
======================================================================
TO AMEND TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH A SAFETY DATA
COLLECTION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 6-AXLE VEHICLES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
January 18, 2024.--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. 3372]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 3372) to amend title 23, United
States Code, to establish a safety data collection program for
certain 6-axle vehicles, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 3
Hearings......................................................... 4
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations................. 6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 7
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 11
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 11
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 11
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 12
Preemption Clarification......................................... 12
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 12
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 12
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 12
Section 1. Safety Data Collection Program for Certain 6-Axle
Vehicles................................................... 12
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 12
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SAFETY DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 6-AXLE VEHICLES.
Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(x) Pilot Program for Safety Data Collection on Certain 6-Axle
Vehicles.--
``(1) General authority.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
establish a pilot program (referred to in this subsection as
the `pilot program') under which States admitted by the
Secretary under paragraph (2) may allow covered 6-axle vehicles
to be operated on the Interstate System in the State.
``(2) Admission to pilot program.--
``(A) Initial application.--Beginning on the date
that is 30 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection, a State seeking to participate in the pilot
program shall submit an application to the Secretary in
electronic form, containing such administrative
information as the Secretary may require, including a
certification that the State has or will have the
authority pursuant to State law to implement the pilot
program.
``(B) Admission.--The Secretary shall admit to the
pilot program, on a rolling basis, States that submit a
completed application under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Election to no longer participate.--If a State
elects to no longer participate in the pilot program,
the State shall notify the Secretary of such election.
``(3) Means of implementation.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible to participate in
the pilot program, a State shall agree to implement the
pilot program through the issuance of permits per
vehicle or group of vehicles with respect to covered 6-
axle vehicles.
``(B) Permit.--A permit described in subparagraph (A)
shall--
``(i) describe the Interstate System routes
that may be used while operating at greater
than 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight in a
covered 6-axle vehicle; and
``(ii) require the permit holder to report to
the State, with respect to each covered 6-axle
vehicle for which such permit was issued--
``(I) each accident (as such term is
defined in section 390.5 of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on the date of enactment of this
subsection) that occurred in the State
involving the covered 6-axle vehicle on
the Interstate System in the State;
``(II) the estimated gross vehicle
weight of each covered 6-axle vehicle
at the time of an accident described in
subclause (I); and
``(III) the estimated miles traveled
by the covered 6-axle vehicle on the
Interstate System in the State
annually.
``(C) Safety equipment incentive.--
``(i) Fee reduction.--With respect to any fee
associated with a permit under this paragraph,
the State may reduce the fee otherwise
applicable to a vehicle by 67 percent if the
vehicle is equipped with an automatic emergency
braking system, including such systems in use
on the date of enactment of this subsection.
``(ii) Group of vehicles.--As applied to a
permit for a group of vehicles, the reduction
under clause (i) shall only apply with respect
to individual vehicles in the group that are
equipped with an automatic emergency breaking
system, including such systems in use on the
date of enactment of this subsection.
``(4) Other authorizations not affected.--This subsection
shall not restrict--
``(A) a vehicle that may operate under any other
provision of this section or another Federal law; or
``(B) a State's authority with respect to a vehicle
that may operate under any other provision of this
section or another Federal law.
``(5) No highway funding reduction.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), funds apportioned to a State under section 104
for any period may not be reduced because the State authorizes
the operation of covered 6-axle vehicles within such State in
accordance with this subsection.
``(6) Annual report.--Not later than the first March 1 after
the date of enactment of this subsection, and annually
thereafter, a State participating in the pilot program shall
submit to the Secretary with respect to the previous calendar
year, a report on--
``(A) the number of accidents (as such term is
defined in section 390.5 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this subsection)) that occurred on the Interstate
System in the State involving a covered 6-axle vehicle
for which a permit was issued under the pilot program;
``(B) the estimated gross vehicle weight of each such
vehicle at the time of the accident in the State
described in subparagraph (A); and
``(C) the estimated miles traveled by such vehicle on
the Interstate System in the State.
``(7) Termination of pilot program.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), the pilot program shall terminate on the date that
is 5 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection.
``(B) Additional application; continuation of
authority.--For a period of 5 years beginning on the
date described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary may
continue the pilot program with respect to each State
in the program, upon the application of a State and
after consideration of--
``(i) the actual experience of the State
under the pilot program; and
``(ii) any documents or other material
submitted by the State in support of such an
application.
``(8) Covered 6-axle vehicle defined.--In this subsection,
the term `covered 6-axle vehicle' means a vehicle--
``(A) equipped with 6 or more axles;
``(B) for which the weight--
``(i) on any single axle of the vehicle does
not exceed 20,000 pounds, including enforcement
tolerances;
``(ii) on any tandem axle of the vehicle does
not exceed 34,000 pounds, including enforcement
tolerances; and
``(iii) on any group of three or more axles
of the vehicle does not exceed 45,000 pounds,
including enforcement tolerances;
``(C) for which the gross weight does not exceed the
lesser of--
``(i) 91,000 pounds, including enforcement
tolerances; and
``(ii) the maximum permitted by the bridge
formula under subsection (a); and
``(D) that is not a longer combination vehicle, as
such term is defined in subsection (d)(4).''.
Purpose of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3372, as amended, is to establish a
voluntary, state opt-in, five-year pilot program to increase
truck weights on Federal Interstates up to 91,000 pounds on
six-axle vehicles, in order to promote efficiencies in our
Nation's supply chain.
Background and Need for Legislation
The current framework of laws and regulations governing
minimum and maximum weights and lengths for trucks is a complex
set of Federal standards that apply to the Interstate System
and the National Network, a system of approximately 209,000
miles of roads specifically designated in Federal regulations.
Federal law sets minimum and maximum standards for weight and
minimum standards for length of trucks traveling on the
Interstate System and the National Network. States have the
authority to exercise numerous exceptions to these Federal
standards. Beyond the Interstate System and National Network,
states have the ability to set their own size and weight
limitations on all other roads.
Congress enacted the first Federal truck size and weight
limits as part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-
627), and these standards were subsequently amended in the
Federal-Aid Highway Amendments Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-643) and
again in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(P.L. 97-424). Each of these acts contained provisions allowing
states to continue using existing size and weight standards
already in place, known as ``grandfather rights,'' even if they
allowed for heavier vehicles than the new Federal standards. In
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(P.L. 102-240) Congress enacted a ``freeze'' on the size and
weight of longer combination vehicles, which were defined in
the legislation as ``any combination of a truck tractor and two
or more trailers or semitrailers which operates on the
Interstate System at a gross vehicle weight greater than 80,000
pounds.''
Current Federal weight limits, which are applicable only on
the Interstate System, are set in section 127 of title 23, of
the United States Code, at 20,000 pounds on a single axle;
34,000 pounds on a tandem axle; and 80,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight. Federal law prohibits a state from prescribing weight
limits that are more or less than the Federal limits, unless it
has grandfather rights. In addition to the overall weight
standards, a state must meet the requirements of the Federal
Bridge Formula, unless it has grandfather rights from 1974.
Sec. 127 has additional statutory exemptions from the weight
standards beyond the above-mentioned grandfather rights.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, Jurisdiction and
Activities Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. 1 (2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2016, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA)
released its Final Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study
required by Sec. 32801 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21) (P.L. 112-141). The study did not
include any recommended changes to current law governing truck
size and weight due to a lack of sufficient data on the impacts
of increased truck size and weight on infrastructure and
safety.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Id., U.S. Dep't of Transp. Fhwa, Report to Congress:
Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (Apr. 2016), available
at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map21tswstudy/ctsw/
ctswls_rtc_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3372, as amended, would allow more freight to be moved
using fewer commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) through the
establishment of a voluntary, state opt-in, five-year pilot
program to increase truck weights on Federal Interstates up to
91,000 pounds on six-axle vehicles. H.R. 3372 sets forth the
conditions for the pilot program, including requirements for a
State program, information a participating State must provide
to United States Department of Transportation (DOT), and
specifically that a State who applies to participate in the
pilot program submits ``such administrative information as the
Secretary [of Transportation] may require''.
Hearings
For the purposes of rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6)(A) of the
118th Congress, the following hearings were used to develop or
consider H.R. 3372, as amended:
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; 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).
On Wednesday, May 10, 2023, the Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit met at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House
Office Building to receive testimony on ``Freight Forward:
Overcoming Supply Chain Challenges to Deliver for America.'' At
the hearing Members received testimony from Mr. William
``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice President of the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA); Ms. Anne Reinke,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Transportation
Intermediaries Association (TIA); Mr. David Fialkov, Executive
Vice President, Government Affairs for both NATSO, Representing
America's Travel Plazas and Truck Stops (NATSO) and SIGMA:
America's Leading Fuel Marketers (SIGMA); and Mr. Cole
Scandaglia, Senior Legislative Representative and
Transportation Policy Advisor of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters (Teamsters). This hearing allowed Members to
examine and discuss the trucking industry's essential link
within the Nation's supply chain, as well as the challenges
associated with moving freight by commercial motor vehicles.
Legislative History and Consideration
H.R. 3372, ``To amend title 23, United States Code, to
establish a safety data collection program for certain 6-axle
vehicles, and for other purposes'' was introduced in the United
States House of Representatives of May 16, 2023, by Mr. Dusty
Johnson of South Dakota and Mr. Jim Costa of California and
referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, H.R.
3372 was referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit was discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 3372 on May 23, 2023.
The Committee considered H.R. 3372 on May 23, 2023, and
ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a
favorable recommendation, with amendment, by a recorded vote of
33 yeas to 27 nays.
The following amendments were offered:
An amendment to H.R. 3372, offered by Ms. Davids of Kansas
(009) (#15A); Page 6, line 11, strike ``10'' and insert ``5''.
Page 6, line 14, strike ``10'' and insert ``5''.; was 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. 015
On: agreeing to Final Passage, H.R. 3372, as amended.
Agreed to: 33 yeas and 27 nays.
Vote: 015.
On: Final Passage of H.R. 3372, as amended.
Yea 33; Nay 27.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Graves of MO................................ Yea Mr. Larsen of WA.................. Nay
Mr. Crawford.................................... Yea Ms. Norton ....................... Nay
Mr. Webster of FL............................... Yea Mrs. Napolitano................... ............
Mr. Massie...................................... Yea Mr. Cohen......................... Nay
Mr. Perry....................................... Yea Mr. Garamendi..................... Nay
Mr. Babin....................................... Yea Mr. Johnson of GA................. Nay
Mr. Graves of LA............................... Nay Mr. Carson........................ Nay
Mr. Rouzer...................................... Yea Ms. Titus......................... Nay
Mr. Bost........................................ ............ Mr. Huffman....................... Nay
Mr. LaMalfa..................................... Yea Ms. Brownley...................... Nay
Mr. Westerman................................... Yea Ms. Wilson of FL.................. Nay
Mr. Mast........................................ Yea Mr. Payne......................... Nay
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon............................. Yea Mr. DeSaulnier.................... Nay
Mr. Stauber..................................... Nay Mr. Carbajal...................... Nay
Mr. Burchett.................................... Yea Mr. Stanton....................... Nay
Mr. Johnson of SD............................... Yea Mr. Allred........................ Yea
Mr. Van Drew.................................... Yea Ms. Davids of KS.................. Yea
Mr. Nehls....................................... Nay Mr. Garcia of IL.................. Nay
Mr. Gooden of TX................................ Yea Mr. Pappas........................ Yea
Mr. Mann........................................ Yea Mr. Moulton....................... Nay
Mr. Owens....................................... Yea Mr. Auchincloss................... Nay
Mr. Yakym....................................... Yea Ms. Strickland.................... ............
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer............................. Nay Mr. Carter of LA.................. Nay
Mr. Edwards..................................... Yea Mr. Ryan.......................... Nay
Mr. Kean of NJ.................................. Nay Mrs. Peltola...................... Yea
Mr. D'Esposito.................................. ............ Mr. Menendez...................... Nay
Mr. Burlison.................................... Yea Ms. Hoyle of OR................... Nay
Mr. James....................................... Yea Mrs. Sykes........................ Yea
Mr. Van Orden................................... Yea Ms. Scholten...................... Yea
Mr. Williams of NY.............................. Yea Mrs. Foushee...................... Nay
Mr. Molinaro.................................... ............
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. 3372, as amended,
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
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, as amended,
is to authorize a five-year pilot program allowing states to
increase truck weights on Federal Interstates. H.R. 3372, as
amended, also includes reporting requirements regarding
accidents incurred by participating vehicles ensuring proper
data collection.
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. 3372, as amended, 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. 3372, as amended,
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. Safety Data Collection Program For Certain 6-Axle Vehicles
This section amends Section 127 of title 23, United States
Code, to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a
voluntary, five-year pilot program, with an optional additional
five-year extension, to allow States the option to increase
gross vehicle weight limits on Federal Interstates within their
State up to 91,000 pounds on six-axle vehicles. This section
also includes data reporting requirements to allow for an
assessment of the pilot programs' execution. Additionally, this
section requires participating commercial motor vehicles to
comply with the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Bridge
Formula. Further, this section excludes longer combination
vehicles from participation in the pilot program.
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 (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.--A vehicle, if
operated by an engine fueled primarily by natural gas or
powered primarily by means of electric battery power, 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.
(x) Pilot Program for Safety Data Collection on Certain 6-
Axle Vehicles.--
(1) General authority.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary
shall establish a pilot program (referred to in this
subsection as the `pilot program') under which States
admitted by the Secretary under paragraph (2) may allow
covered 6-axle vehicles to be operated on the
Interstate System in the State.
(2) Admission to pilot program.--
(A) Initial application.--Beginning on the
date that is 30 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, a State seeking
to participate in the pilot program shall
submit an application to the Secretary in
electronic form, containing such administrative
information as the Secretary may require,
including a certification that the State has or
will have the authority pursuant to State law
to implement the pilot program.
(B) Admission.--The Secretary shall admit to
the pilot program, on a rolling basis, States
that submit a completed application under
subparagraph (A).
(C) Election to no longer participate.--If a
State elects to no longer participate in the
pilot program, the State shall notify the
Secretary of such election.
(3) Means of implementation.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible to
participate in the pilot program, a State shall
agree to implement the pilot program through
the issuance of permits per vehicle or group of
vehicles with respect to covered 6-axle
vehicles.
(B) Permit.--A permit described in
subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) describe the Interstate System
routes that may be used while operating
at greater than 80,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight in a covered 6-axle
vehicle; and
(ii) require the permit holder to
report to the State, with respect to
each covered 6-axle vehicle for which
such permit was issued--
(I) each accident (as such
term is defined in section
390.5 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, as in
effect on the date of enactment
of this subsection) that
occurred in the State involving
the covered 6-axle vehicle on
the Interstate System in the
State;
(II) the estimated gross
vehicle weight of each covered
6-axle vehicle at the time of
an accident described in
subclause (I); and
(III) the estimated miles
traveled by the covered 6-axle
vehicle on the Interstate
System in the State annually.
(C) Safety equipment incentive.--
(i) Fee reduction.--With respect to
any fee associated with a permit under
this paragraph, the State may reduce
the fee otherwise applicable to a
vehicle by 67 percent if the vehicle is
equipped with an automatic emergency
braking system, including such systems
in use on the date of enactment of this
subsection.
(ii) Group of vehicles.--As applied
to a permit for a group of vehicles,
the reduction under clause (i) shall
only apply with respect to individual
vehicles in the group that are equipped
with an automatic emergency breaking
system, including such systems in use
on the date of enactment of this
subsection.
(4) Other authorizations not affected.--This
subsection shall not restrict--
(A) a vehicle that may operate under any
other provision of this section or another
Federal law; or
(B) a State's authority with respect to a
vehicle that may operate under any other
provision of this section or another Federal
law.
(5) No highway funding reduction.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), funds apportioned to a State under
section 104 for any period may not be reduced because
the State authorizes the operation of covered 6-axle
vehicles within such State in accordance with this
subsection.
(6) Annual report.--Not later than the first March 1
after the date of enactment of this subsection, and
annually thereafter, a State participating in the pilot
program shall submit to the Secretary with respect to
the previous calendar year, a report on--
(A) the number of accidents (as such term is
defined in section 390.5 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date
of enactment of this subsection)) that occurred
on the Interstate System in the State involving
a covered 6-axle vehicle for which a permit was
issued under the pilot program;
(B) the estimated gross vehicle weight of
each such vehicle at the time of the accident
in the State described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) the estimated miles traveled by such
vehicle on the Interstate System in the State.
(7) Termination of pilot program.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the pilot program shall
terminate on the date that is 5 years after the
date of enactment of this subsection.
(B) Additional application; continuation of
authority.--For a period of 5 years beginning
on the date described in subparagraph (A), the
Secretary may continue the pilot program with
respect to each State in the program, upon the
application of a State and after consideration
of--
(i) the actual experience of the
State under the pilot program; and
(ii) any documents or other material
submitted by the State in support of
such an application.
(8) Covered 6-axle vehicle defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``covered 6-axle vehicle'' means a
vehicle--
(A) equipped with 6 or more axles;
(B) for which the weight--
(i) on any single axle of the vehicle
does not exceed 20,000 pounds,
including enforcement tolerances;
(ii) on any tandem axle of the
vehicle does not exceed 34,000 pounds,
including enforcement tolerances; and
(iii) on any group of three or more
axles of the vehicle does not exceed
45,000 pounds, including enforcement
tolerances;
(C) for which the gross weight does not
exceed the lesser of--
(i) 91,000 pounds, including
enforcement tolerances; and
(ii) the maximum permitted by the
bridge formula under subsection (a);
and
(D) that is not a longer combination vehicle,
as such term is defined in subsection (d)(4).
* * * * * * *