[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6587-6589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2533]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. 95-5]


Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments and establishment of docket.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice requests public comment on an FHWA Comprehensive 
Truck Size and Weight Study (CTS&WS) through an open docket. In 
addition, the notice articulates the FHWA's goals with regard to 
studying the many issues related to truck size and weight (TS&W) 
policy. Public comments are solicited at this time on the study plan 
described below and responses are sought to a set of policy questions 
listed below. FHWA working papers developed for Phase I of the study 
will be placed in the docket for review and comment by February 15, 
1995.

DATES: This docket will remain open until the study is completed. 
However, in order for comments to be considered during the critical 
early stages of the study, they should be received no later than April 
3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 95-5, 
Federal Highway Administration, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Interested 
parties are requested to identify themselves for inclusion on a mailing 
list for notification of any public meeting(s) that may be held in 
connection with this study and availability of interim products by 
providing their names and mailing addresses to the above docket. All 
public meetings will also be announced in the Federal Register.
    All comments received will be available for examination at the 
above address between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through 
Friday, except legal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt 
of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or 
postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Philip Blow, Office of Policy 
Development, at (202) 366-4036; Mr. Thomas Klimek, Office of Motor 
Carrier Information Management and Analysis, at (202) 366-2212, or Mr. 
Charles Medalen, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-1354, Federal 
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 
4:15 p.m., 

[[Page 6588]]
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This study is being conducted partly in response to a legislative 
proposal in the 103rd Congress, H.R. 4496, that would: (1) Freeze the 
weights allowed by State law or permit regulation on the non-Interstate 
portion of the National Highway System (NHS), and (2) freeze the length 
of new trailers at 53 feet. This bill, or similar legislation, could 
have a significant impact on the public and private sectors and on the 
safety and efficiency of the total transport system.
    The current TS&W regulations were based on concerns for national 
uniformity and good highway system stewardship, including matching 
vehicle weights and dimensions with the existing public infrastructure 
and with mechanisms for cost recovery. At times, some States have 
adopted new pavement and bridge design standards to better match the 
weights and dimensions of the vehicles being allowed to operate on 
their highways. Highway engineers are concerned about premature 
degradation of that infrastructure and the consequent strain on public 
resources. As technology and shipper demand have resulted in larger and 
heavier trucks, concerns for highway safety (adequate brakes and 
vehicle handling and stability) and loss of rail service (due to loss 
of freight traffic to larger trucks) have become increasingly 
important, especially with regard to longer combination vehicles (LCV). 
LCVs are multi-cargo unit truck combinations that weigh more than 
80,000 pounds. Typical LCVs are Rocky Mountain doubles (combinations 
with one trailer 40 feet or longer and another 30 feet or shorter), 
turnpike doubles (combinations with two 40-foot or longer trailers), or 
triples (combinations with all three trailers 30 feet or shorter in 
length).
    A shift of some TS&W regulatory responsibilities from the States to 
the Federal Government occurred at the start of the Interstate 
construction era in the 1950s, and since then, the distribution of this 
shared responsibility has shifted back and forth. Now as the Interstate 
construction era draws to a close, the transport community is again 
reassessing the Federal role in the context of future highway 
transportation needs.
    The ultimate goal of a comprehensive TS&W study effort is to 
estimate the net effects of various regulatory options on a transport 
system evolving to serve a modern global economy. New vehicles, 
electronic technology, and distribution systems create new capabilities 
and opportunities. The effects of changing logistics costs, production 
strategies, and shipping patterns must be evaluated from the 
perspectives of carriers, managers of infrastructure, shippers, 
consumers, and the traveling public. Further, the safety and 
environmental impacts of these regulatory policies must be fully 
considered.
    Thus, TS&W policy touches upon a variety of public concerns such as 
safety, infrastructure design and wear, carrier and shipper 
productivity, States' rights and national uniformity, environment, 
energy use, intermodal competition, and cost recovery. In addition, 
these concerns exist at the local, State, regional, national, and 
international scales. The CTS&WS will summarize a wide array of 
information on the many related aspects of TS&W policy.
Study Plan

    In order to address the issues related to possible changes in 
Federal TS&W provisions, the following study plan has been developed. 
Phase I, TS&W Synthesis, will assess past policy studies and research 
findings. The major purpose of this phase is to describe what is known 
about the technical relationships between TS&W policy controls and 
their related issues. TS&W studies completed within the last 15 years, 
as well as more recent research not covered in these studies, are being 
synthesized. The history of State and Federal TS&W regulation is also 
being reviewed. In addition, State and Federal TS&W regulations are 
being summarized, and knowledge and research gaps on TS&W issues are 
being identified and prioritized.
    The available material is being synthesized under the subject 
areas: vehicle stability and control, truck accident data, pavement and 
bridge wear, highway geometry, traffic operations, truck operating 
costs, shipper logistics costs, truck travel, mode share, enforcement, 
environment, energy conservation, permits and pricing mechanisms. 
Working Papers will be available to the public by February 15, 1995. 
Phase I will be completed in early 1995.
    Phase II, a Preliminary Option Analysis, will evaluate on a limited 
basis specific policy options using existing databases. This analysis 
will be preliminary because new data for a comprehensive analysis of 
TS&W issues, such as commodity flow information, is not expected to be 
made available by the Bureau of the Census until late 1995. Therefore, 
Phase II policy options will include appropriate caveats regarding the 
limitations of earlier studies. The analysis will be as comprehensive 
as possible, at a minimum including the impacts of changes in Federal 
TS&W provisions on safety, infrastructure and economic productivity. 
This phase will be completed during the summer of 1995.
    Phase III, an Extended Impact Analysis, will be able to use the 
data and new tools that become available in 1995 and 1996 to prepare 
in-depth analyses of the Phase II policy options. It will incorporate 
results from a parallel cost allocation study, which the FHWA is 
undertaking to determine whether the various highway users, including 
heavy vehicles, are paying their fair share into the Highway Trust 
Fund. Specific policy options will be analyzed using improved 
information on freight flows and truck use. Phase III will address the 
full range of costs and benefits estimated to derive from these 
options. This last phase of the study will be completed by the end of 
1996.

Policy Questions and Comments

    In addition to comments on the study plan described above, 
responses to the following questions are solicited from any parties 
interested in TS&W regulations and issues. The following key policy 
questions will be considered during the course of the three-phase 
study:

Federal Interests and Role

    1. What are the Federal interests in TS&W regulation? What are the 
State and local government interests? How can conflicts among Federal, 
State, and local interests be accommodated?
    2. Should there be a Federal role in areas such as standards, 
investment decisions, user fee collection, operational controls, and 
enforcement? What should that role be?
    3. To what extent is national uniformity needed? For which type of 
motor carrier operations is national uniformity in TS&W regulation 
desirable? In terms of type and area of motor carrier operations, in 
which cases would regional uniformity be more appropriate? For which 
type of highways is national uniformity desirable? In which cases would 
regional uniformity be appropriate?

Weight Limits

    4. Are changes in Federal weight limits desirable? If so, how 
should the present Federal vehicle weight limits be changed? (These 
limits include the single and tandem-axle weight limits, the 80,000-
pound gross vehicle weight 

[[Page 6589]]
limit, and the Federal bridge formula. The Federal bridge formula is:

W=500{[LN/(n-1)]+12N+36}

where: W = the maximum weight in pounds that can be carried on a group 
of two or more axles to the nearest 500 pounds. L = the spacing in feet 
between the outer axles of any two or more axles. N = the number of 
axles being considered.
    Why are the changes needed? Which shippers or producers would 
benefit from these changes, and to what extent do they benefit? How 
would the public benefit from these changes?
    5. Should there be a specific Federal weight limit for tridem 
axles, as there are for single and tandem axles? (The allowable load on 
a tridem is now determined by Bridge Formula B and varies from 42,000, 
if the axles are spread just over 8 feet, to 43,500 pounds, if the 
spread is 10 feet.)
    6. Is there a need for Federal regulation of tire loads and 
pressures or other tire controls for the purpose of protecting highway 
pavements? How should they be specified?
    7. If Federal vehicle weight limits were increased, should 
additional requirements be placed on the heavier vehicles and their 
operation? For which vehicles should such requirements be considered? 
Why are these requirements needed?

Size Limits

    8. Should the present Federal vehicle size (length and width) 
limits be changed? If so, how should they be changed? Why are these 
changes needed? Which shippers or producers would benefit from these 
changes, and to what extent would they benefit? How would the public 
benefit from these changes?
    9. If Federal vehicle size limits were increased, should additional 
requirements be placed on the larger vehicles and their operations? For 
which vehicles should such requirements be considered? Why are these 
requirements needed?
    10. Presently, there are no Federal regulations governing truck 
height. Is there a need for a Federal vehicle height limit? If so, why 
is it needed?

Performance Standards

    11. Could performance standards, such as ability to maintain a 
minimum speed, be used as a part of a new Federal TS&W policy? How 
would such standards achieve results at least equivalent to current 
size and weight limits and vehicle requirements? How could these 
standards be applied and enforced?

Grandfather Rights

    12. Should State authority to claim grandfather rights under 
Federal TS&W provisions (including overweight permit authority) be left 
intact, frozen, or phased out? Why?
Permits

    13. How does the extent of motor carrier operations under 
overweight permits compare to that for operations that do not require 
permits? What portion of the nondivisible load permits are issued 
routinely; that is, without an engineering review? Nonroutinely, with 
an engineering review? What portion of overweight permits are issued 
for divisible loads?
    14. How do operations under the various types of permits vary by 
type of trucking operations and from one region of the country to 
another?
    15. Should there be a Federal role in the permitting of overweight 
vehicles carrying divisible loads? What role? Why?

National Objectives

    16. Highway Safety: Is there a Federal role in utilizing TS&W 
provisions to improve highway safety? What are appropriate vehicle 
performance standards for improving highway safety? What equipment 
specifications are needed for which vehicle combinations? What driver 
requirements (minimum age, training, or experience) are needed? Under 
what highway, traffic, and weather conditions should the operation of 
larger or heavier vehicles be restricted? Is a regional role or State 
role appropriate?
    17. Productivity Enhancement and International Trade: What 
potential changes in Federal TS&W provisions could be used to 
facilitate interstate commerce? International trade? What types of 
vehicles are used in North American trade? What are the significant 
international freight movements in terms of commodity and origins and 
destination? How can the movement of International Standards 
Organization containers be facilitated? Are there changes in TS&W 
standards that would better facilitate North American trade and what 
are the expected benefits and costs?
    18. Intermodalism: What Federal TS&W provisions could be used to 
facilitate the intermodal movement of freight where this is efficient? 
How do TS&W limits relate to the needs of other modes, especially rail 
and maritime?
    19. Environment: Which potential changes in Federal TS&W provisions 
are consistent or inconsistent with local and State air quality 
improvement strategies? What effect would increased or decreased TS&W 
limits have on traffic noise and vibration?
    20. Energy Conservation: Which potential changes to Federal TS&W 
provisions could be used to help conserve energy?

Carrier/Shipper Standards Setting

    21. If you could, how would you change truck size and weight limits 
and related requirements or set performance standards to optimize your 
trucking or logistics operations? What are the bases for the limits and 
requirements or performance standards? How would the changes affect 
highway pavements and bridges and the national objectives mentioned 
above? In your response, please: (1) Describe your operations including 
commodities carried, equipment used, area of operation, amount of 
traffic, lengths of haul, and arrangements with your shippers and other 
carriers; and (2) evaluate the benefits that you and the public will 
realize from your proposed changes.

Special TS&W Provisions

    22. Should there be separate TS&W provisions for special 
commodities or equipment such as hazardous materials, agricultural and 
forest products, other natural resources, intermodal containers and 
trailers, water and oil well drilling rigs, military vehicles, and 
automobile and boat transporters? Why? What benefits would be realized 
from the special provisions?

Exemptions from TS&W Standards

    23. Should any vehicles that use federally-supported highways be 
exempt from Federal TS&W regulation (for example, military vehicles)? 
Why? What benefits would be realized from the exemptions?

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 U.S.C. 301, 302, 305; Pub. L. 102-
548, 106 Stat. 3646.

    Issued On: January 26, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-2533 Filed 02-01-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P