[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 161 (Friday, August 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50471-50479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 658

[FHWA Docket No. 1997-2234 (formerly 87-5 and 89-12)]
RIN 2125-AC30


Truck Length and Width Exclusive Devices

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting comments on proposed criteria for 
excluding safety or efficiency enhancing devices from measurement of 
vehicle length and width.
    All previous interpretations related to exclusions from 
measurements of vehicle length and width would be superseded to the 
extent they are inconsistent with these regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to docket number 1997-2234, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room 
PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit 
electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments received 
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. 
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or print the acknowledgment page after 
submitting comments electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tom Klimek, Office of Freight 
Management and Operations, (202-366-2212); or Mr. Charles Medalen, 
Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-1354), Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office 
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 50472]]

Electronic Access and Filling

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document 
Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable 
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information 
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and 
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and 
guidelines are available under the help section of the web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a 
computer, modem and suitable communications software from the 
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at 
(202)512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal 
Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government 
Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    Section 411(h)of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 
(STAA) (Public Law 97-424, 96 Stat. 2097) gave the Secretary of 
Transportation (Secretary) authority to exclude from the measurement of 
vehicle length any safety and energy conservation devices found 
necessary for the safe and efficient operation of commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs). That authority is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 31111(d). 
Section 416(b), now 49 U.S.C. 31113(b), authorized similar exclusions 
when measuring vehicle width. Section 411(h) also provided that no 
device excluded from length measurement by the Secretary could have, by 
design or use, the capability to carry cargo.
    Since enactment of the STAA, four Federal Register notices have 
identified some 55 devices as length or width exclusive. Copies of all 
of them are available on-line under the FHWA docket number cited at the 
beginning of this document. (See 52 FR 7834, March 13, 1987; 54 FR 
52591, December 26, 1989; 55 FR 10468, March 21, 1990; and 55 FR 25673, 
June 22, 1990.)
    Prior to 1979, the FHWA operated under an administrative definition 
of the term ``vehicle'' that included the main structure of the vehicle 
with attachments unless an exception or tolerance was allowed by State 
law as of July 1, 1956. The width limit for trucks and buses at that 
time was 96 inches (2.44 meters) on the Interstate System, as 
established by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-627, 
70 Stat. 374, at 381). However, it was the practice of the States to 
allow certain exceptions to that limit for mirrors, hand holds, and 
turn signals. The maximum width limit of buses was increased from 96 
inches (2.44 meters) to 102 inches (2.6 meters) by the Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-280, 90 Stat. 425, at 438).
    The States' practice of allowing exceptions to the width limit was 
acknowledged and endorsed in the American Association of State Highway 
Officials' (AASHO) 1963 ``Recommended Policy on Maximum Dimensions and 
Weights of Motor Vehicles to be Operated Over the Highways of the 
United States.'' Width was defined as follows:

    Width: The total outside transverse dimension of a vehicle 
including any load or load-holding devices thereon, but excluding 
approved safety devices and tire bulge due to load.

    This definition has been part of AASHO, now the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 
recommended practice since it was adopted in 1963. The difference 
between the AASHO/AASHTO recommended policy and the FHWA's 
administrative interpretation generated inquiries which were answered 
in a Notice of Interpretation (NOI) published on June 28, 1979 (44 FR 
37710). The FHWA adopted the AASHO/AASHTO definition of width and 
allowed the States to exclude certain safety devices from the 
measurement of a vehicle's width. These consisted of load-induced tire 
bulge, rearview mirrors, turn signal lamps, and hand holds for cab 
entry/egress. A subsequent NOI published on January 2, 1981 (46 FR 32), 
allowed States to expand the list of safety devices which could extend 
beyond the 96-inch (2.44-meter) load surface. A final rule published on 
June 5, 1984 (49 FR 23302) and codified in part 658, reiterated the 
FHWA's previous policy of allowing States to exclude from vehicle width 
measurements those safety devices that do not extend more than 3 inches 
(76 millimeters) from either side. The rule interpreted the 102-inch 
width limit to include its approximate metric equivalent of 2.6 meters. 
In addition, it defined length exclusive devises as all non-cargo 
carrying appurtenances at the front or rear of a CMV semitrailer or 
trailer whose function is related to the safe and efficient operation 
of the semitrailer or trailer.
    Two additional NOI's on length and width exclusive devices were 
issued on January 13, 1986, (51 FR 1367) and on March 13, 1987 (52 FR 
7834). While these documents remain active, they simply represent 
FHWA's interpretations of statutory provisions and have no binding 
regulatory effect, either on the States or the motor carrier industry.
    The January 13, 1986, NOI specifically excluded from any length 
measurement 6-inch and 8-inch (152mm and 203mm) front locking devices 
(bolsters) and a 12-inch (0.30-meter) rear lift tailgate in the ``up'' 
position. The NOI declined to exclude a 7-foot (2.13-meter) front 
trailer frame extension from length measurements on grounds that it was 
load bearing, but reiterated that this did not necessarily preclude its 
use because States could recognize it as a length exclusive device.
    The March 13, 1987, NOI held that lift gates not over 24 inches 
(0.61 meters) from the rear of the trailer in the ``up'' position, B-
train assemblies, and about 35 other devices qualified as length or 
width exclusive devices. It also provided that the width of a trailer 
be measured across the sidemost load-carrying structures, support 
members, and structural fasteners, and that the length of a semitrailer 
be measured from the front vertical plane of the foremost transverse 
load-carrying structure to the rear vertical of the rearmost traverse 
load-carrying structure.
    The STAA required States to allow 102-inch (2.6-meter) wide CMVs on 
the National Network (NN). The NN consists of the Interstate System and 
other highways designated in 23 CFR part 658, appendix A. Hawaii, 
however, was allowed to keep its 108-inch (2.74-meter) width limit.
    In addition, the STAA set minimum length limitations for 
semitrailers operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer combination on 
the NN. The States were required to allow semitrailers with a length of 
48 feet (14.63-meters), unless the State allowed a longer semitrailer 
on December 1, 1982. In that case, the longer length was grandfathered 
and the State must continue to allow the use of semitrailers up to that 
length on the NN. A list of grandfathered semitrailer lengths is 
published in 23 CFR part 658, appendix B.
    The minimum length limit for each semitrailer or trailer in a truck 
tractor-semitrailer-trailer combination was established at 28 feet 
(8.53 meters), or 28.5 feet (8.69 meters) if in legal operation on 
December 1, 1982, within an overall length of 65 feet (19.81 meters). 
States may not limit the overall length of a truck tractor semitrailer, 
or

[[Page 50473]]

truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combination, on the NN.
    Pursuant to its authority under section 411(d) of the STAA, the 
FHWA designated several CMV combinations with unique characteristics as 
``specialized equipment'' and established length parameters for their 
operation on the NN. The most common of these specialized vehicles are 
automobile transporters. Minimum length limits established include 65 
feet (19.81 meters) for standard automobile transporters and 75 feet 
(22.86 meters) for stinger steered units, i.e., the fifth wheel is 
located on a drop frame located behind and below the rear-most axle of 
the power unit.
    Boat transporters are also allowed the same lengths based on the 
fifth wheel connection location. In addition, all automobile and boat 
transporters are allowed cargo overhangs of up to 3 feet (0.91 meters) 
in front of the truck tractor and 4 feet (1.22 meters) beyond the rear 
of the semitrailer.
    Other combinations considered specialized equipment include truck 
tractor-semitrailer-semitrailer vehicles with a ``B-train'' connection, 
Maxi-cubes, and beverage semitrailers. The length requirements 
established for these combinations are described in 23 CFR 658.13.
    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
(ISTEA), Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, established a minimum 
length limit for buses of 45 feet (13.72 meters) on the NN. There are 
no Federal laws or regulations regarding the length of straight trucks.
    The ISTEA also prohibited the States from allowing the cargo-
carrying units of CMVs with two or more such units to exceed the length 
allowed and in actual use on the NN on June 1, 1991. It also provided 
that the length of the cargo-carrying units is to be measured from the 
front of the first unit to the rear of the last unit. These provisions 
did not affect the authority of the Secretary to exclude devices from 
the measurement of length and width if the vehicles are subject to 
Federal size requirements.
    Today's proceeding was originally initiated through an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) issued on December 26, 1989 (54 
FR 52951), which requested information on a series of issues. The 
comment period, originally established at 90 days, was subsequently 
extended to August 21, 1990 (55 FR 25673). After considering the 
comments received in response to the ANPRM, the statutory language on 
length and width exclusive devices in 49 U.S.C. 31111(d), 31113(b), and 
developments in the industry since 1990, the FHWA is proposing 
regulatory changes to 23 CFR part 658. The FHWA is requesting comments 
on proposed criteria for excluding safety or efficiency enhancing 
devices from measurement of vehicle length and width.
    In 1997, the FHWA rearranged its docket system in accord with the 
electronic system adopted by the Department of Transportation. A new 
docket was established to receive the information with the number FHWA 
Docket 1997-2234. Material previously submitted to Docket Nos. 87-5 and 
89-12 was transferred and scanned into FHWA Docket 1997-2234.
    Sixty-eight comments were submitted in response to the ANPRM (FHWA 
Docket Nos. 87-5 and 89-12). Those commenting fell into the following 
groups: States--17, automobile transporter companies--14, trade 
associations--6, trailer manufacturers--5, bus and truck 
manufacturers--4, tarp and tarp hardware manufacturers--3, 
individuals--3, port authorities--1, carpet manufacturer--1, walkway 
and platform manufacturers--1, employees union--1, U.S. Government 
agencies--1, and comments relating to extending the comment period--2. 
Several respondents commented more than once.

Questions in the ANPRM and Comments from Respondents

    The ANPRM asked the following questions:
    1. What are the safety and enforcement implications of (1) 
Requiring that certain categories of vehicle components be included in 
a length or width measurement; and (2) allowing a blanket exclusion for 
other devices extending no more than 3 inches (76 millimeters) beyond 
the outer dimensions of the components that must be included in length 
and width measurements?
    Seven States supported the concept, while seven did not. The 
Indiana State Police favored a blanket exclusion over a list of 
specific devices. The KansasDOT felt that all devices should be limited 
to 3 inches (76 millimeters). The Traffic Division and the State Police 
of Maine favored a 12-inch (0.30-meter) exclusion for non cargo-
carrying devices at the rear of a trailer and an exclusion for devices 
which do not extend beyond the swing radius in front of a semitrailer 
or trailer. The Michigan DOT and the Oregon DOT felt that a 3-inch (76-
millimeter) width exclusion should cover all devices except turn signal 
lamps and mirrors. The Minnesota DOT had no objection to a blanket 3-
inch exclusion. The Virginia DOT accepted the 3-inch band concept, but 
preferred specific items over a blanket exclusion. The Florida DOT 
indicated that the proposal would increase uniformity, but degrade 
safety. The Georgia DOT felt that no new devices should be excluded. 
The Iowa DOT pointed out that a 3-inch (76-millimeter) exclusion would 
effectively legalize a 108-inch width (2.74 meter). The North Carolina 
Division of Motor Vehicles felt that no exclusion should be adopted for 
width, but a 24-inch (0.61-meter) length exclusion could be adopted at 
the front and rear of semitrailers and trailers. The Pennsylvania DOT 
favored determining excluded devices on a case-by-case basis. The 
Vermont DOT felt that the 3-inch (76-millimeter) exclusion should only 
be for safety and not efficiency enhancing devices and that excluded 
devices should be determined by cooperative State action and not 
Federal mandates. The Washington DOT opposed the concept, fearing it 
would encourage wider vehicles.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favored the 3-inch 
(76-millimeter) general width exclusion on each side and also favored 
allowing up to 8 inches (203 millimeters) on each side [a total of 16 
inches overall (406 millimeters)] for energy conserving devices. The 8-
inch (203-millimeter) exclusion on each side would apply only on a 
case-by-case basis in anticipation of new designs in innovative 
technology.
    Five trade associations favored the proposal, as did two trailer 
and two truck manufacturers. Navistar International Transportation 
Corporation (NAVISTAR) stated that the 3-inch (76-millimeter) exclusion 
should extend from the maximum allowable width of a vehicle and not 
from the actual width of the vehicle, if less.
    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey opposed the proposal 
because some NN highways in the port area have lanes less than 12-feet 
(3.66-meters) wide.
    Most of the respondents recognized the advantages of a general 
exclusion over specific exclusions from the measurement of vehicle 
length and width. Their principal concern was that this would somehow 
result in longer and wider vehicles. However, the idea that some 
accommodation must be provided for devices exceeding the maximum 
vehicle width and length was recognized in the STAA, which gave the 
Secretary authority to provide exemptions. In addition, the proposed 
rule specifies that excluded devices must be non-cargo carrying.
    2. What other alternatives are there for simplifying the present 
process for determining which devices should be

[[Page 50474]]

included or excluded when measuring the length or width of a vehicle?
    Three States responded to this question. The California DOT 
observed that trailer manufacturers have designed for maximum width, 
with no allowance for protection of the load or trailer. The Georgia 
DOT suggested that only safety devices be excluded from width 
measurements, although both safety and operational devices could be 
excluded from length. The Nebraska State Patrol suggested that safety 
devices be clearly defined.
    Four motor carrier respondents emphasized that any loss of trailer 
length or width would be detrimental to them and the economy. The 
Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (SC&RA) suggested a general 
exclusion supplemented by specific exclusions for devices which could 
exceed the general exclusion. It further suggested an advisory 
committee to make recommendations to eliminate interpretation problems 
and determine which devices to exclude from length and width 
measurements. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) indicated that 
there was no way to simplify the process, that it should remain on a 
case-by-case basis. Navistar and Mack Trucks, Inc. (MACK) suggested 
that safety devices which could extend more than 3 inches (76 
millimeters) from the side of a vehicle should be specifically listed. 
Navistar suggested that access steps should be included as a safety 
device.
    The commenters recognized that unless vehicles were manufactured to 
include necessary safety and efficiency enhancing devices within 
maximum width and length limits, some exclusions from the measurement 
of length and width of vehicles would be necessary.
    3. The following are possible categories for components of 
trailers: (1) Structural (needed to support or convey the load), (2) 
load protection, (3) protection of trailer components, and (4) vehicle 
safety. Are there any other categories that would be useful for 
determining whether a device should be included or excluded from a 
length or width measurement?
    Of the six State DOT's that commented on this question, Missouri 
and Oregon favored the existing components. Iowa wanted aerodynamic 
devices to be excluded as a measurable vehicle component, while 
Minnesota wanted devices for loading and unloading vehicles excluded. 
California wanted to exclude load protection devices or devices that 
protect trailer components. Florida wanted to exclude rub rails and 
vehicular visibility enhancements from components to be measured in 
determining vehicle length.
    The ATA suggested that attempting to specify additional components 
would only lead to debates over semantics. The SC&RA suggested that 
trailer components should be considered in four categories: (1) 
Structural (needed to support or convey the load), (2) load protection, 
load holding, and load securement, (3) protection of vehicle 
components, and (4) vehicle, driver, and public safety.
    This question may have been confusing. It was intended to determine 
what components are integral parts of a trailer and should be included 
in its measurements. While it is clear that structural components 
should be included in the measurement of trailer dimensions, it appears 
that the other categories proposed by the SC&RA are not integral 
trailer components, but are devices to be included as needed. We 
believe that the proposal to include in the measurement of length and 
width all components of a vehicle which are not excluded is the 
simplest and easiest to apply. In addition, this NPRM proposes that an 
aerodynamic device at the front or rear that is an integral part of a 
semitrailer or trailer would be included in the measurement of its 
length unless it is a length exclusive device.
    4. How would the proposed approach or an approach offered in 
response to question number 2 impact: Vehicle manufacturers? Motor 
carriers? Shippers? Highway operations?
    Eight State DOT's and two truck manufacturers commented on this 
question. Georgia, Oregon, and Virginia recognized that a blanket 
exclusion would reduce confusion as to what devices were excluded. 
Florida said that eliminating length or width exclusions would result 
in reductions in cargo space in order to accommodate devices formerly 
excluded. California felt that it might need to reevaluate the routes 
available for large trucks. Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska felt that the 
impact would be unfavorable.
    Navistar felt that a 3-inch (76-millimeter) exclusion would allow 
greater flexibility in designing devices, and Mack felt that the effect 
would depend on what devices were exempted from the 3-inch (76-
millimeter) limit.
    The responses to this question were general in nature. There are at 
least 10 devices which, under current Federal interpretation, may 
extend up to 3 inches (76 millimeters) beyond the 102-inch (2.6-meter) 
width of trailers, and States may allow additional safety devices to 
extend up to 3 inches (76 millimeters). The proposed exclusion is 
similar but will merely mean that new devices will be automatically 
excluded and not have to go through a rulemaking process.
    5. Under existing Federal regulations, States must exempt specified 
devices from the measurement of vehicle length and width. They may 
exempt safety devices that do not extend more than 3 inches (76 
millimeters) from the side of a vehicle. Does the problem of 
determining what new devices should be exempted from length and width 
measurements warrant further preemption of State authority by requiring 
them to allow a blanket 3-inch (76-millimeter) exemption?
    Ten State DOT's, two trade associations, two truck manufacturers, 
and one employee union responded to this question. Maine, Minnesota, 
and Nebraska agreed that a 3-inch (76-millimeter) exclusion was 
justified. Vermont felt that exclusions should be determined by 
cooperative State action. Connecticut and Missouri opposed a blanket 3-
inch (76-millimeter) exclusion. Virginia felt preemption was justified 
only if State laws or regulations were unreasonable. Iowa and Georgia 
were concerned about the safety of a blanket 3-inch (76-millimeter) 
exclusion. California favored individual over blanket exclusions.
    The ATA, SC&RA, Navistar, and Mack favored Federal preemption. The 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters worried about the safety of 
trucks growing to 108 inches (2.74 meters).
    The commenters generally accepted that some devices must extend 
beyond the structural elements of a vehicle. Since publication of the 
1987 NOI, the 3-inch band for width exclusion has evolved into a 
national ``standard'' generally followed by States and the industry.
    6. Current regulations provide that the length of a semitrailer and 
a full trailer is to be measured from the front vertical plane of the 
foremost transverse load-carrying structure to the rear vertical plane 
of the rearmost transverse load-carrying structure. Current regulations 
also provide that the width of a trailer is measured across the 
sidemost load-carrying structures, support members, and structural 
fasteners. Should these regulations be clarified and if so, how?


    Note: The ``regulation'' in question 6 was in fact the NOI 
published on March 13, 1987, which, as stated earlier, represents 
the FHWA's interpretation of statutory language, but is not binding 
in its application.


    Six State DOT's, two carrier associations, one trailer 
manufacturer, and the EPA commented. Florida and Iowa felt that no 
clarification was needed. Oregon suggested that trailer

[[Page 50475]]

lengths should be measured ``from the front of the foremost structural 
or load bearing member to the rearmost structural or load bearing 
member.'' It had no comment on how widths should be measured. Georgia 
and Nebraska felt that the measurements should be from the outermost 
trailer extremities, and Michigan merely criticized the existing 
definition.
    The EPA said that ``cargo carrying structure'' is more 
understandable than ``structural element.'' Lufkin, a trailer 
manufacturer, suggested that vehicles should be measured against an 
imaginary box of legal dimension, while the SC&RA felt the matter 
should be studied by an advisory committee. The ATA favored a 
manufacturer's certification that the vehicle was of legal dimensions 
as a way of taking the responsibility for measurements off field 
enforcement personnel.
    We believe that the proposal to measure all parts of a vehicle, 
except those excluded from measurement, is the simplest and easiest to 
apply. Even if the ATA's suggestion was adopted, manufacturers would 
have to know how to measure a trailer. The concept of measuring against 
an imaginary box would have pragmatic application problems. Many of the 
size variances which prompt enforcement action are relatively small 
with respect to the overall size of the vehicle, i.e., a few inches 
versus 48-feet long or 8-feet 6-inches wide. It is quite likely that 
many violations would be missed as a vehicle could appear to be 
``legal'' yet actually be far enough out of ``square'' to be in 
violation.
    7. There are no regulations on how buses or other commercial 
vehicles are to be measured. Are they needed? If so, how should they 
read?
    Eleven State DOT's, two carrier associations, one bus manufacturer, 
and one trailer manufacturer commented.
    California and Indiana felt this should be left to the States. 
Iowa, Minnesota, and Oregon reported no problems measuring buses. 
Nebraska and North Carolina felt that all CMV's, including buses, 
should be measured the same. Michigan believes that regulations should 
be adopted, while Florida believes they are not needed. Virginia 
suggested that buses should be measured from the front vertical plane 
to the rear vertical plane. Georgia believes that buses should not 
exceed 102 inches (2.6 meters) in width except for mirrors.
    Lufkin Industries Inc. and Flxible Corporation believe that 
regulations should be adopted. The ATA favored a manufacturer's 
certification as a substitute for field measurements, while the SC&RA 
supported the development of standards by the FHWA for measuring all 
vehicles.
    Section 4006(b)(1) of the ISTEA amended section 411(a) of the STAA 
[49 U.S.C. 31111(d)] to require States to allow buses up to 45-feet 
(13.72-meters) long on the NN. The FHWA is proposing to measure buses 
the same as other vehicles, i.e., including all parts except those 
excluded from measurement.
    Another issue which has developed, specifically with respect to 
buses, is whether the measured length should include or exclude 
bumpers. In establishing the 45-foot length requirement for buses, the 
Congress was silent on the subject. Existing regulatory language is 
also silent on the issue as the definition of length exclusive devices 
in 23 CFR 658.5 refers generally to ``all appurtenances at the front or 
rear of a commercial motor vehicle semitrailer, or trailer''. Buses are 
not specifically mentioned in the definition, yet they are commercial 
vehicles. The only relevant guidance is that provided in the March 13, 
1987, NOI. The drawings included in that document to demonstrate 
trailer length exclude a ``resilient bumper block'' at the rear of a 
semitrailer while including a ``non-resilient bumper''.
    While revising their statutes to reflect the Federal requirement 
for 45-foot buses, some States have adopted a limit inclusive of 
bumpers, some a limit excluding bumpers, and many a 45-foot limit with 
no further qualification of the issue.
    Consistent State-to-State treatment of STAA vehicles is the primary 
goal of Federal legislation in this area. In recent years, however, 
different State policies on bus bumpers have caused compliance problems 
for operators.
    For these reasons, this proposal would allow States to exclude from 
the length measurement of a commercial vehicle, including buses, 
resilient bumpers up to 6 inches out from the front and rear of the 
vehicle. Resilient bumpers would include devices made from any material 
which can be deformed by impact, and substantially return to its 
original shape immediately upon disengagement with the item impacted. 
While the genesis of this issue has involved buses, the application to 
all commercial vehicles will match what is indicated in the NOI of 
March 13, 1987, and not make illegal any vehicles operating under the 
1987 guidance on resilient bumper blocks.
    8. Should there be a limit on how far a width exclusive device may 
extend, if more than 3 inches (76 millimeters), from the side of a 
vehicle (i.e., rearview mirrors, turn signal lamps, hand holds for cab 
entry and egress, and splash and spray suppressant devices)? If so, 
what should the limit be?
    Twelve State DOT's, three trade associations, four truck or trailer 
manufacturers, one bus manufacturer, and one motor carrier responded. 
Florida, Maine, and Missouri did not support a limit on the length of 
mirrors. They felt mirrors should be as wide as necessary. Maine said 
there would be no reason for them to extend further than necessary, and 
Navistar said that weight, vibration, and aerodynamics would limit the 
extension of safety devices to no more than necessary. Michigan favored 
making mirrors retractable. Of these ten commenters, six also would not 
limit the lateral extension of turn signal lamps.
    Indiana favored a 12-inch (0.30-meter) limit for mirrors, 6 inches 
(152 millimeters) for turn signal lamps, 4 inches (102 millimeters) for 
hand holds for cab entry/egress, and 3 inches (76 millimeters) for 
splash and spray suppressant devices. Virginia also favored a 12-inch 
(0.30-meter) limit for mirrors, provided they were mounted on 
collapsible holders. California and Minnesota favored a 10-inch (254-
millimeter) limit for mirrors. The Port Authority of New York and New 
Jersey favored an 8-inch (203-millimeter) limit for mirrors, Iowa 
favored a 6-inch (152-millimeter) limit provided they were a hinged or 
a breakaway design, Oregon and Nebraska favored a 5-inch (127-
millimeter) limit, and Georgia, Missouri, and Central Freightlines 
favored a 3-inch (76-millimeter) limit. The ATA felt that the length of 
mirrors should be considered by an advisory committee. The National 
Truck Equipment Association, SC&RA, Freightliner, Navistar, Mack, 
Lufkin, and Flxible felt that in addition to mirrors and turn signal 
lamps, hand holds for cab entry/egress and splash and spray suppressant 
devices should not be subject to specific length limits.
    Rearview mirrors are essential to the safe operation of CMVs. The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires vehicle 
manufactures to install outside mirrors when the driver of a motor 
vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the 
rear (49 CFR 571.111). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA) requires motor carriers operating CMVs in interstate commerce 
to maintain these mirrors (49 CFR 393.80). However, neither the NHTSA 
nor the FMCSA have requirements concerning the distance the mirror may 
extend beyond the sides of CMVs. Many commenters to the

[[Page 50476]]

ANPRM favored the establishment of a restriction on the distance a 
review may extend beyond the sides of CMVs, but differing on the value. 
The distances mentioned ranged from 3 to 12 inches (25.4mm to 0.30 
meters). Two commenters suggested that mirrors be of a hinged or 
breakaway design. No commenters provided support for the distance they 
suggested, or why hinged or breakaway designs should be required.
    The FHWA believes that mirrors must extend far enough from the side 
of the vehicle to provide a reasonably unobstructed view to the rear of 
the vehicle, yet not so far that a driver cannot easily adjust the 
mirror as necessary. Most mirror designs extend more than 3 inches (76 
millimeters) beyond the sides of the vehicle, and a 12 inch (0.30-
meter) distance was the maximum requested by commenters. The FHWA 
believes 12 inches (0.30 meter) is a reasonable maximum distance for 
mirrors to extend from the side of a CMV and is proposing a 12-inch 
maximum (0.30-meter). There is no safety data to indicate that motor 
carriers operating CMVs with mirrors extending to the 12-inch distance 
are having difficulty operating these vehicles on the NN.
    9. Are there any devices on trailers manufactured between 1983 and 
1987 that would be eliminated by the proposed regulations? If so, what 
are they? Should they be grandfathered? What should the grandfather 
date be?
    Eight State DOT's, three trade associations, and two trailer 
manufacturers commented. Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and the SC&RA 
said that either there should be no permanent grandfathers or that they 
were not aware of any. California and Iowa said that no illegal devices 
should be grandfathered. Georgia, Kansas, and Oregon said that there 
should be no permanent grandfathers but only equipment grandfathers, 
and those for not more than 2 or 3 years.
    The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Lufkin, and Kolstad 
Company said that devices on trailers manufactured before any new 
regulations become effective should be grandfathered. The ATA, who 
favored self-certification by trailer manufacturers, agreed.
    We are unaware, at this point, of any devices that exceed the 
limits proposed to be allowed. Consideration will be given to 
grandfathering any devices that are pointed out to us in comments to 
this NPRM. In addition, any unauthorized new devices that may exceed 
the limits proposed in this rulemaking may be considered for exclusion 
from length or width measurement. Sufficient justification should be 
provided in either case to determine if it would be appropriate to 
exclude them from the measurement of vehicle length or width.

Miscellaneous Docket Comments

    There were miscellaneous comments from several State DOT's. Kansas 
suggested that regulations for length and width exclusive safety 
devices should be included in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations for ease of enforcement. Michigan said that if a long 
vehicle scraped another vehicle on a turn without the driver being 
aware of it, leaving the scene of the accident would be a felony 
offense that could cost the driver his/her license. However, a driver 
who was unaware of an accident and who had not acted in wanton and 
willful disregard for the consequences of his/her action would not have 
the requisite intent to sustain a felony conviction. In any event, this 
would be true for a vehicle of any length or width.
    California, Iowa, and Virginia urged that consideration be given to 
a hinged or breakaway design for excluded devices. This is unnecessary 
as excluded devices are not made sturdier than necessary since this 
would add to the tare weight of the vehicle. Furthermore, inertial 
forces would render an underdesigned hinged or breakaway design 
ineffective if a vehicle was moving at more than a minimum speed.
    Missouri asked if a 4-foot 11-inch (1.50-meter) front extension on 
trailers used to haul test vehicles was excluded from length 
measurement. Automobile transporter combinations are subject to a 
minimum overall length limit on the NN. States must allow them to be 
that long but are not required to allow them to be longer. States would 
have to allow attachments on automobile transporter trailers within the 
overall length limit provided they were not unsafe.
    The ATA, National Industrial Transportation League, Moore's Lumber 
and Building Supplies, Watkins Shepard Trucking, Inc., Churchill Truck 
Lines, Inc., and Comcar Industries, Inc., believe that manufacturing, 
operational, and maintenance tolerances should be adopted. They pointed 
out that thermal expansion, variations in structural components, and 
operational bending and twisting could all cause trailers to exceed 
legal measurements. Also fifth wheel height, differences in suspension 
components, and tire inflation can all cause trailers to tilt, lean, or 
both. Repairs, such as external ``fish plate'' repairs to bottom rails 
or reinforcements for intermodal operations and side doors, are all 
necessary for efficient trailer operations.
    Since there is no authority in the STAA to exclude structural or 
load-carrying components from length and width measurements, 
manufacturing tolerances for these components would be inconsistent 
with the statute. We will not propose any such tolerance. The alleged 
need for operational tolerances involving lean, tilt, or twist can be 
removed by requiring that measurements be made from the same point on 
each side, or at the front and rear of the vehicle. This is reflected 
in the proposed regulations.
    Structural repairs and reinforcements for side doors or intermodal 
operations, while incidentally load supporting, have as their primary 
purpose repairing or adapting trailers to other uses, thereby 
increasing their efficiency. Therefore, we are proposing to consider 
structural repairs and structural reinforcements for side doors and 
intermodal operations as width exclusive devices and allowed to extend 
1 inch (25.4 millimeters) on either side of the vehicle beyond the 
components to be included in width measurements. However, at the 
locations where these structural reinforcements have been added, the 3-
inch (76-millimeters) overall exclusion would still apply to the basic 
102-inch (2.6-meters) unit width. The 3-inch (76-millimeters) band 
would be inclusive of the 1-inch (25.4-millimeter) reinforcement and 
not additive.
    The National Automobile Transporters Association and fourteen 
individual automobile transporters wanted load-carrying tiedowns or 
``flippers'' to be excluded from length measurements.
    The STAA authorized the FHWA to adopt rules to accommodate 
automobile transporters on the NN. Under that authority, the FHWA 
required States to allow automobile transporters to be a minimum of 65 
feet (19.81 meters) in overall length [75 feet (22.86 meters) if 
stinger-steered], plus cargo overhangs of up to 3 feet (0.91 meters) in 
front of the truck tractor and 4 feet (1.22 meters) beyond the rear of 
the semitrailer. These overhangs are not length exclusive devices, but 
are simply operating rights created for, and limited to, this 
specialized equipment. The need for overhangs is an illustration of why 
the Congress authorized special treatment for these vehicles.
    In order to load modern automobiles, many with bodies that extend 
only a short distance beyond their front and rear axles, to the full 
extent of the allowed overhangs, automobile

[[Page 50477]]

transporters must use retractable platforms to position and secure 
them. Although not explicity authorized in our existing regulations, 
their use is consistent with the implementation of regulations allowing 
cargo overhangs. Therefore, we propose to amend 23 CFR 658.13(e) to 
clarify that retractable platforms or ``flippers'' are not to be 
included in the length determination of automobile transporters when 
positioning and securing assembled highway vehicles, provided that when 
being used, the platforms (or flippers) themselves do not extend more 
than 3 feet (0.91 meters) beyond the front of the auto transporter, or 
4 feet (1.22 meters) beyond the rear of the semitrailer. However, when 
not being used to secure vehicles, they must be retracted since they 
are not cargo, do not provide a mount for or restrain cargo, and thus 
serve none of the intended purposes of the overhang provision. It is 
not necessary to consider if they should be excluded from measurement 
of the length of automobile transporters plus overhangs since they do 
not extend beyond the minimum lengths that States must allow.
    One automobile transporter who responded to the ANPRM also wanted 
an exclusion for a step to extend 4 inches (102 millimeters) in front 
of the front bumper of the cab of automobile transporter vehicles. This 
would enable the driver to stand on the step while tying down cargo on 
the power units. The proposed 3-inches (76-millimeter) exclusion would 
cover such devices. Transporters who believe a 4-inch step surface is 
necessary could partially recess the step into the bumper to obtain the 
extra inch of width.
    The EPA and one individual wanted the FHWA to establish a point of 
contact for equipment innovators to learn about length and width 
exclusions. The Size and Weight Team Leader [currently Mr. Klimek (202-
366-2212)] in the Office of Freight Management and Operations is the 
agency's contact for questions of that kind.
    World Carpets wanted up to a 6-inch (152-millimeter) width 
exclusion on each side of a trailer for bulge due to load. Strick 
Trailers said that loads, such as carpets, bulk grain, bagged livestock 
feed, and others press against the side of a trailer and bow it as much 
as 7.5 inches (191 millimeters). Load-induced bulges in the sides of a 
trailer are neither safety nor energy conservation devices and 
therefore are not covered by the proposed exclusion.
    A manufacturer of external work platforms for cattle trailers 
requests exclusion of the platform for safety reasons which will extend 
2\1/2\ inches (64 millimeters) from the load bearing vertical trailer 
ribs when folded in the up position. This platform is included in the 
proposed exclusion band.
    One tarp and tarp equipment manufacturer proposed that no exclusion 
be allowed for tarps and tarp hardware since its system did not exceed 
applicable width limits, while two others advocated up to a 5-inch 
(123-millimeter) exclusion. We believe that tarps, tarp hardware, and 
complete tarping systems can be accommodated within a 3-inch (76-
millimeter) exclusion. This would be the case even if the system being 
considered included a component piece (e.g., headboard, frame, etc.) of 
a width equal to that of the vehicle itself plus up to 6 inches. 
Assuming the component is not also intended or designed to meet the 
front-end structure requirements of 49 CFR 393.106, and is properly 
centered as part of the installation process, the net effect would 
remain that no part of the device would extend beyond 3 inches from the 
measured width of the vehicle. Also allowed would be transition pieces 
or ``wings'' between a front-end structure which is designed to meet 
the requirements of 49 CFR 393.106 (and limited to 102-inches wide), 
and the movable portion of a tarping system. However, for these wings 
to remain eligible for width exclusion, they must: (1) Not extend more 
than 3 inches (76 millimeter) from the side of the bulkhead, (2) not be 
attached to any other cargo-carrying or supporting part of the flatbed 
structure, and (3) remain as an add-on piece as opposed to building a 
single piece bulkhead up to 108-inches wide. This would apply to 
tarping systems for open-top trailers that are used (1) to protect the 
cargo from weather and vandalism, (2) prevent the contents of a vehicle 
from spilling onto the road, and (3) tarping systems that when deployed 
enclose the cargo carrying area of a flatbed. All three eliminate the 
need for drivers to climb onto the vehicle in order to position and 
fasten these coverings.

Other Issues

    Section 411(h) of the STAA reads as follows:

    The length limitations described in this section, shall be 
exclusive of safety and energy conservation devices, such as rear 
view mirrors, turn signal lamps, marker lamps, steps and handholds 
for entry and egress, flexible fender extensions, mudflaps and 
splash and spray suppressant devices, load-induced tire bulge, 
refrigerator units or air compressors * * *.

    Refrigeration units and air compressors are usually mounted on the 
front of trailers and were, therefore, intended to be length exclusive. 
All of the rest were intended to be width exclusive.
    Rear view mirrors, turn signal lamps, hand holds for cab entry/
egress, splash and spray suppressant devices, and load-induced tire 
bulge have been identified as width exclusive devices in 23 CFR 658.5 
but with no limit on how far they may extend beyond the side of a 
vehicle. The FHWA policy announced in the 1987 NOI allows a 3 inch (76 
millimeter) width limit for marker lamps. In addition, prior 
regulations have not explained how far steps and hand holds for entry 
and egress, flexible fender extensions and mudflaps may extend beyond 
the side of a vehicle.
    Except for mirrors and turn signal lamps, we believe the lateral 
extension of all these devices should not exceed 3 inches (76 
millimeters). We therefore propose not to provide a specific exclusion 
for these devices but to leave them subject to the general 3-inch (76-
millimeter) width exclusion.
    We also propose to apply a general rule to refrigeration units and 
air compressors, i.e., they will be excluded from measurement of 
vehicle length insofar as they do not extend beyond the swing radius in 
front of a semitrailer or trailer. Again, no specific exclusion will be 
provided. We would be interested in any comments concerning whether 
this will accommodate the newer refrigeration units which are wider and 
flatter.
    In response to section 414(a) of the STAA, the NHTSA and the FHWA 
opened companion rulemaking proceedings, the former applicable to new 
vehicles, the latter to those already in service, to prescribe minimum 
standards for the performance and installation of splash and spray 
suppressions devices. Both proceedings were terminated on grounds that 
no available technology had been demonstrated to reduce splash and 
spray significantly [53 FR 18860 (FHWA), 18861 (NHTSA), May 25, 1988]. 
However, the devices tested by the NHTSA did not increase splash and 
spray, and probably helped to prevent truck tires from throwing gravel 
and other road debris into the path of other vehicles. Since mudflaps 
are required by many States, we propose to include within the 3-inch 
(76 millimeter) blanket exclusion all devices intended to reduce splash 
and spray or to block or contain debris kicked up by tires.
    States may allow a semitrailer or trailer longer than the minimum 
length required by the STAA to operate on the NN. They may also issue 
permits allowing vehicles to exceed the 102-inch (2.6 meter) width 
limit on the NN.

[[Page 50478]]

In those cases, the length-and-width-exclusions proposed by this NPRM 
would not apply: the Federal government does not have jurisdiction to 
regulate non-STAA vehicles, and the States may impose any conditions 
they wish on the use of overwidth permits, including complete 
prohibition of width-exclusive devices. Nonetheless, the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations (in particular 49 CFR part 393, Parts and 
Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation) generally apply to all CMVs 
(as defined in 49 CFR 390.5) operated in interstate commerce 
irrespective of their length or width.
    The ISTEA length freeze applies only to cargo-carrying units, not 
to length exclusive devices which are prohibited from carrying cargo.

Aerodynamic Devices

    The 1987 NOI suggests that aerodynamics devices up to 5-feet (1.52 
meters) long be excluded from vehicle length measurement. Four 
individuals wanted an exclusion for aerodynamic devices extending 
beyond the 5 feet (1.52 meters) and one asked for an exclusion of up to 
8 feet (2.44 meters). The discussion in the NOI required that 
aerodynamic devices not obscure tail lamps, turn signals, marker lamps, 
identification lamps, license plates or any other required safety 
devices, such as hazardous materials placards. Regulations published at 
49 CFR 393.3 require that any additional equipment or accessories not 
decrease the safety of operation of the CMVs on which they are 
attached. This would include the effect of splash and spray on 
following or passing vehicles, the effect of aerodynamic buffeting on 
passing vehicles, and any hazards posed by the device if the vehicle on 
which it was attached was in an accident.
    The purpose of aerodynamic devices is to increase fuel economy. We 
recognize that this is critically important to the Nation's 
transportation system. However, solid aerodynamic devices or those 
which include a rigid frame may pose a danger in case of crashes where 
vehicle underride is a factor.
    Because of FHWA's concern about any solid or rigid frame 
aerodynamic devices being attached to the rear of trailers, such as 
panels on each side of the rear of the trailer and hinged metal plates 
extending beyond the rear of the trailer, no exclusions for solid or 
rigid devices are proposed in this rulemaking. New technological 
advances would be considered on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum, 
such requests would have to include sufficient information to 
demonstrate clearly that they would be safe under all highway 
conditions that might be encountered.
    There are no similar concerns for aerodynamic devices made of 
flexible material, inflated by air pressure and which have no rigid 
structure. They would have to comply with 49 CFR 393.3 which requires 
that any additional equipment or accessories not decrease the safety of 
the vehicle on which they are attached.
    We propose to exclude flexible aerodynamic devices up to 8 feet 
(2.4 meters) in length from the measurement of vehicle length.
    Any aerodynamic device attached to the rear of a vehicle must also 
comply with the conspicuity requirements.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this 
document in the docket room at the above address. We will file comments 
received after the comment closing date in the docket and will consider 
late comments to the extent practicable. We may, however, issue a final 
rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to 
late comments, we will also continue to file, in the docket, relevant 
information becoming available after the comment closing date, and 
interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new 
material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We have determined that this action is not a significant regulatory 
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant 
within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies 
and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this 
rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a regulatory evaluation is not 
required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), we have evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. The 
FHWA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action merely 
replaces a list of specific devices that may extend beyond the 
structural members of a vehicle with a general rule covering how far 
devices may extend beyond the structural members of vehicles.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and 
it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial 
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that 
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. While aspects of 
this document directly preempt State law and or regulation, the 
practical effect is to simply codify what has evolved into standard 
practice by the States and industry since enactment of the STAA in 
1983.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, 
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has reviewed 
this proposal and determined that it does not contain collection of 
information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 
U.S.C.1531 et seq.).

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

[[Page 50479]]

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.) and has determined that this action will not have any effect 
on the quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 658

    Grants program--transportation, Highways and roads, Motor carrier--
size and weight.

    Issued on: August 11, 2000.
Walter L. Sutton, Jr.,
Federal Highway Deputy Administrator.

PART 658--TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT; ROUTE DESIGNATION--LENGTH, WIDTH 
AND WEIGHT LIMITATIONS

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend 23 
CFR part 658 as follows:
    1. Revise the authority citation for 23 CFR 658 to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111, 31112, 31113, 
and 31114; 49 CFR 1.48.

    2. Amend Sec. 658.5 by revising the definition of Length exclusive 
devices and Safety devices--width exclusion and adding a definition of 
Swing radius to read as follows:


Sec. 658.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Length exclusive devices. Devices excluded from the measurement of 
vehicle length. Such devices shall not be designed or used to carry 
cargo.
* * * * *
    Safety devices--width exclusion. Devices excluded from the 
measurement of vehicle width. Such devices shall not be designed or 
used to carry cargo.
* * * * *
    Swing radius. The swing radius is the volume bounded by the front 
wall of a semitrailer or trailer and the arc formed when a line 
centered on the kingpin is rotated from the lower left to the lower 
right front corner of the vehicles. The swing radius extends from the 
bottom to the top of the semitrailer or trailer.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 658.13, remove paragraph (f); redesignate paragraphs (g) 
and (h) as paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively; and revise paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec. 658.13  Length.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) All length provisions regarding automobile transporters are 
exclusive of front and rear overhang. Further, no State shall impose a 
front overhang limitation of less than 3 feet or a rearmost overhang 
limitation of less than 4 feet. Extendable ramps or ``flippers'' on 
automobile transporters which are used to achieve the allowable 3-foot 
front and 4-foot rear cargo overhangs are excluded from the measurement 
of vehicle length, provided they are retracted when not supporting 
cargo.


Sec. 658.15  [Amended]

    4. Amend Sec. 658.15 by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating 
paragraph (d) as paragraph (c).
    5. Add Sec. 658.16 to read as follows:


Sec. 658.16  Exclusions from length and width determinations.

    (a) Vehicle components not excluded by law or regulation shall be 
included in the measurement of the length and width of commercial motor 
vehicles.
    (b) The following shall be excluded from measurements of commercial 
motor vehicle length and width: All nonload-carrying devices which do 
not extend more than 3 inches beyond the front or each side of the 
vehicle, or 24 inches beyond the rear of the vehicle, and all nonload-
carrying devices within the swing radius at the front of a semitrailer 
or trailer. In addition, resilient bumpers extending up to 6 inches 
from the front and rear of a commercial vehicle shall be excluded from 
the measurement of length.
    (c) Rear view mirrors may extend up to 12 inches and turn signal 
lamps my extend up to 6 inches beyond each side of a vehicle.
    (d) Aerodynamic devices made of flexible material which are 
inflated by air pressure and lack a rigid structure may extend not more 
than 8 feet beyond the rear of a vehicle, provided they do not obscure 
tail lamps, turn signals, marker lamps, identification lamps, license 
plates, or any other required safety devices, such as hazardous 
materials placards or conspicuity markings.
    (e) These exclusions are specific and may not be added to other 
excluded devices.
    (f) Measurements are to be made from a point on one side or end of 
a commercial motor vehicle to the same point on the opposite side or 
end of the vehicle.

[FR Doc. 00-20939 Filed 8-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P