[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48821-48823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18907]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 657

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-97-2219; 93-28]
RIN 2125-AC60


State Certification of Size and Weight Enforcement

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Termination of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document terminates a rulemaking proceeding to amend the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulation covering State 
certification of size and weight enforcement of commercial motor 
vehicles. The agency initiated this action to consider revising the 
criteria for determining State compliance with existing Federal 
requirement for an annual certification of State size and weight 
enforcement. Recently, however, the National Research Council of the 
Transportation Research Board (TRB) issued a congressionally mandated 
report that, among other things, recommended revised Federal weight 
standards and further recommended additional study be undertaken of 
ways to improve enforcement of truck weight laws. The recommendations 
of the TRB report provide a basis for a broader review of the Federal 
and State truck size and weight programs. In light of this situation, 
we are terminating this rulemaking action and closing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Davis, Office of Freight 
Management and Operations (202) 366-2997, or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, 
Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, 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.

Background

    Since 1975, States have been required under 23 U.S.C. 141, to 
certify annually that they are enforcing their laws respecting maximum 
vehicle size and weight in order to receive their full entitlement of 
Federal-aid highway funds. Regulatory implementation of section 141 is 
found at 23 CFR Part 657, Certification of Size and Weight Enforcement. 
Except for technical corrections necessitated by statutory changes, the 
current content of part 657 has remained unchanged since

[[Page 48822]]

publication in the Federal Register on August 7, 1980, at 45 FR 52365.
    Since that time the motor carrier industry as well as State 
enforcement efforts have undergone substantial change. Recognizing 
these changes, the Federal Highway Administration published an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) [58 FR 65830, December 16, 1993], 
as the first step in revising and updating the requirements of part 
657.
    In June 1994, as the FHWA began review and consideration of the 
comments received, then Federal Highway Administrator Rodney Slater 
committed the FHWA to a comprehensive review of all aspects of the 
truck size and weight issue. Since the Agency was now committed to a 
comprehensive review of truck size and weight issues, it decided to 
postpone further action on this rulemaking until the comprehensive 
study could review existing issues. When the study was at the point 
where it was clear that it would not contain any recommendations in the 
area of enforcement certification, the Agency resumed work on this 
effort.
    On September 28, 2000, at 65 FR 58233, the FHWA issued a 
supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking (SANPRM), asking for 
comments on a number of issues affecting the way in which State size 
and weight enforcement programs are certified. Most of the issues 
raised were the same as those discussed in the 1993 ANPRM. The 
objective was to update information on State programs, provide an 
opportunity for respondents to the SANPRM to review the validity of the 
earlier comments, and give interested parties the opportunity to 
present new ideas, concepts, and information that they believe the FHWA 
should consider in revising the certification process. The SANPRM posed 
11 questions on various topics dealing with State certification of size 
and weight program activities, including: Possible data system needs; 
standardization of practices concerning scale tolerances, fees, fines, 
and staff training; application of technologies; and specific treatment 
of special vehicle types.
    Just as the FHWA was to issue an NPRM, the National Research 
Council of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) provided to Congress 
its Special Report 267, ``Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths of 
Commercial Motor Vehicles.'' \1\ This report describes a number of 
potential actions that public and private sector officials may wish to 
consider. These include ``organizational arrangements'' that would 
promote the reforming of Federal size and weight regulations affecting 
commercial motor vehicles, as well as regulatory and managerial changes 
intended to both improve the efficiency of truck transportation and 
reduce the public cost of truck traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transportation Research Board, ``Regulation of Weights, 
Lengths, and Widths of Commercial Motor Vehicles,'' June 2002, 
National Research Council, Special Report 267. Available online at 
http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/onlinepubs.nsf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Comments to the SANPRM

    Thirty-four interested parties submitted written comments to the 
SANPRM: a bi-partisan delegation from the U.S. Congress; 12 State 
departments of transportation; 6 State enforcement agencies; 2 county 
sheriff's departments; 1 State law enforcement association; 1 county 
commissioner; one city council; 3 highway safety advocacy groups 
[includes the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)]; 3 
representatives of national and State automobile organizations; 2 
representatives of national and State trucking organizations; an 
interstate truck driver; and 1 trucking equipment manufacturer 
association.
    There was a distinct divergence of positions among the respondents 
on almost all issues, with the exception being the almost universal 
consensus that size and weight enforcement is indeed an integral part 
of commercial vehicle safety programs, in addition to its traditional 
infrastructure preservation focus, and should be formally recognized 
and supported as such. As the American Automobile Association (AAA) 
noted in its response, public safety, as well as infrastructure 
preservation, must be considered in the regulation of commercial 
vehicle size and weight. Some respondents supported more aggressive 
State size and weight enforcement, standardization of enforcement 
requirements among the States, improved tracking of permit operations 
and expanded application of data systems to determine wear and tear 
associated with legal and illegal overweight vehicle operations, 
elimination of multi-trip permits, greater fines, and greater 
application of resources to enforcement efforts. Others were somewhat 
less demanding of change. They suggested one of two choices based on 
their experience: either the current certification and enforcement 
process is generally effective in monitoring overweight operations and 
therefore needs minimal or no alteration, or that it could be improved 
by increased Federal funding of State operations and greater Federal 
assistance in providing ``best practices'' to State and local 
enforcement officials. The specifics of these opinions are detailed 
below.

General Comments by Respondents

    In addition to addressing the 11 questions posed in the SANPRM, 
respondents also submitted general comments about the current practices 
and needs of State size and weight enforcement programs. A significant 
concern, expressed by a number of respondents, is the result of an 
unintended consequence of Federal laws on truck size and weight. 
According to respondents, the fact that Federal weight law applies only 
on Interstate highways,\2\ with Federal size laws applying on the 
National Network (NN),\3\ has resulted in an unintended diversion of 
overweight violators onto non-Interstate and often non-NN State and 
local highways. These alternative roadways are inherently less safe, 
are made more so by the violators' passage, and are more vulnerable to 
structural damage than the major systems being avoided. Greater Federal 
support of mobile enforcement efforts, including State use of mobile 
scales and electronic weighing, was therefore advocated to reduce by-
pass efforts by overweight operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Interstate highways are defined in 23 U.S.C. 103, as a 
series of highways designed to connect America's ``principal 
metropolitan areas, cities and industrial centers'' and ``serve the 
national defense.''
    \3\ The National Network is defined under 23 CFR Part 658, 
``Truck Size and Weight, Route Designations ``Length, Width and 
Weight Limitations,'' as the composite of the individual network of 
highways from each State on which vehicles authorized by the 
provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 are 
allowed to operate. The network in each State includes the 
Interstate System, exclusive of those portions excepted under 
Section 658.11(f) or deleted under Section 653.11(d), and those 
portions of the Federal-aid Primary System in existence on June 1, 
1991, as set out by the FHWA in Appendix A of Part 658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current FHWA certification program was directly criticized by 
both members of a bipartisan U.S. House of Representatives group 
opposed to truck size and weight increases, and by the Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS). The congressional group expressed 
concern about inadequate Federal oversight of State programs. The 
congressional delegation called for ``new and effective systems for 
ensuring that State permitting practices are not used as a means of 
circumventing Federal standards' and thereby permit ``back door'' 
increases in vehicle weight. The AHAS criticized the rulemaking effort 
itself as a ``dilatory treatment'' of present day commercial vehicle 
safety

[[Page 48823]]

issues, calling it another delay in response to repeated congressional 
calls for reliable information about the effects of commercial vehicles 
on road safety and infrastructure.
    Other respondents posed differing comments, typically addressing 
general policy concerns, as the following: (1) The overall need to 
strengthen certification requirements; (2) the appropriateness of 
current road tax structures, calling overweight vehicles' failure to 
pay their fair share for the damage they do ``fundamentally unfair'; 
(3) the need for Federal funds to support ``best practices,'' new 
technologies, and new data systems for State usage in monitoring 
overweight vehicle operations; (4) the need for flexibility in 
enforcement plans, in order to help States develop workable strategies 
that best meet individual State's needs; (5) the necessity of weighing 
all vehicles, including those vehicles now using technologies that 
allow by-passing of way stations; and (6) perhaps conversely, the need 
for procedures that help identify and capture the true violator without 
requiring that every commercial vehicle be stopped and weighed.
    In June 2002, the TRB provided to Congress its mandated report on 
commercial vehicle truck size and weight, ``Special Report 267, 
Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths of Commercial Motor 
Vehicles.'' In it, the TRB called on the Congress to create an 
independent public organization to lead a broad-ranging program of 
research and assessment of current truck size and weight regulation; 
facilitate and support extensive evaluations of changes effected 
through State-conducted, federally supervised pilot programs and permit 
initiatives; and recommend regulatory changes to the Secretary of 
Transportation. The FHWA believes that the significant scope of the 
program changes proposed in the report and their possible ramifications 
overshadows the need for publication of the NPRM at this time. The FHWA 
may address the issue of revising truck size and weight enforcement 
regulations at a later date once the TRB report has been reviewed and 
acted upon.

Conclusion

    For the reasons stated above, the FHWA is terminating this 
rulemaking and closing the docket.

    Authority: Sec. 123, Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689; 23 U.S.C. 
127, 141, and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111-31114; sec. 1023, Pub. L. 102-
240, l05 Stat. 1914; and 49 CFR 1.48 (b) (19), (b) (23), (c) (1), 
and (c) (19).

    Issued on: July 22, 2002.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-18907 Filed 7-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P