[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65056-65060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 658

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2002-11819]
RIN 2125-AE94


Designation of Dromedary Equipped Truck Tractor-Semitrailers as 
Specialized Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting comments on a proposal to include as 
specialized equipment, dromedary equipped truck tractor-semitrailer 
combination vehicles when hauling munitions for the U.S. Department of 
Defense (DOD). This proposal is in response to a petition from the U.S. 
DOD, specifically the Department of the Army (DA) that would help to 
expedite the movement of munitions for the military, especially in 
times of national emergency.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at 
http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments

[[Page 65057]]

should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this 
document. 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 
you may print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting 
comments electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Philip Forjan, Office of Freight 
Management and Operations (202-366-6817), or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, 
Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-1377), 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:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document 
Management System (DMS) at: http://dms.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable 
formats include: MSWord (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

    On June 22, 2001, the FHWA received a petition from the U.S. 
Department of the Army (DA), to amend 23 CFR 658.13 to include as 
``specialized equipment,'' dromedary equipped truck tractor-semitrailer 
combination vehicles, when transporting Class 1 explosives \1\ for the 
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). A copy of the petition is included in 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As defined in 49 CFR 173.50. As noted in 49 CFR 173.53, 
prior to January 1, 1991, Class 1 explosives were known as Class A, 
B, or C explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. DOT regulations require Class 1 explosives, such as 
ammunition shells, to be transported separately from the fuses or 
detonators (49 CFR 177.848). The most efficient way for Military 
Traffic Management Command (MTMC) munitions carriers to comply with 
this regulation is to use dromedary containers to carry ammunition-
fuses, with the ammunition in the semitrailer. A dromedary, also known 
as a ``drom,'' is a box, deck, or plate mounted behind the cab and 
forward of the fifth wheel on the frame of the power unit of a truck 
tractor-semitrailer combination. With drom equipment, a single shipment 
of fuses and ammunition requires only one vehicle, but without drom 
equipment, the same shipment requires two vehicles. Shipping these non-
compatible explosives in the same vehicle combination reduces the 
number of vehicles needed to transport munitions, increases military 
readiness and reduces the number of vehicles on the road.
    Under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) [49 
U.S.C. 31111(b)(1)(B), formerly 49 U.S.C. App. 2311(b)] States may not 
enforce an overall length limit against truck tractor-semitrailer 
combination vehicles operating on the National Network \2\ or under 
reasonable access thereto. The same STAA also defined a truck tractor 
as a noncargo carrying power unit that operates in combination with a 
semitrailer or trailer. Drom equipped truck tractors are obviously 
cargo carrying, and, as a result, any combination vehicle that includes 
one of these units may be subjected to an overall length limit at the 
discretion of any State. In implementing the STAA during the mid-1980s, 
the FHWA chose to ``grandfather'' existing drom equipped units by 
allowing any such unit that could show that it was in use on December 
1, 1982, to be considered a truck tractor for regulatory purposes. The 
reason for doing this was to allow an existing fleet of equipment to 
use up its useful life. By now the presumption must be that the vast 
majority of the units that would have met the 1982 grandfather 
requirement, are no longer in service, and those few that might remain, 
could not begin to satisfy the demands of the Defense Department for 
moving munitions. More importantly, the improvements in safety features 
and fuel efficiency of truck tractors over the last 20 years, 
pragmatically rule out use of older equipment by any carrier in the 
business today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As defined in 23 CFR 658, the National Network is the 
composite of the individual network of highways in each State on 
which vehicles authorized by the provisions of the STAA are allowed 
to operate. The network in each State includes the Interstate 
System, exclusive of those portions excepted under Sec.  658.11(f) 
or deleted under Sec.  658.11(d), and those portions of the Federal-
aid Primary System in existence on June 1, 1991, set out by the FHWA 
in appendix A to this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA received a similar petition \3\ in 1989 from a group 
representing munitions carriers. While the petition was under 
consideration, the military action in the Middle East called Operation 
Desert Storm began. Because of the extreme urgency of moving munitions 
destined for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf, the FHWA issued 
an emergency rule (56 FR 4164, February 1, 1991) valid for six months, 
that declared vehicle combinations consisting of truck tractors 
equipped with dromedary units not exceeding 65 inches in length pulling 
semitrailers to be specialized equipment when hauling muntions, thus 
exempting these vehicles from State enforcement of overall length 
regulations. After the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm, the 
emergency rule was allowed to expire in August 1991. Subsequently, the 
FHWA again focused on the merits of the petition and ultimately denied 
it. The basic reasoning for denial was that since only one or two 
States were enforcing overall length limits at the time, the FHWA felt 
it would be inconsistent with the Executive Order on Federalism (E.O. 
12612) in effect at the time to preempt State authority for what was 
considered a local problem, limited in scope. Although denying the 
petition, the FHWA recognized that even localized enforcement could 
interrupt this vital Defense Department activity of moving ammunition 
to where it could support our troops. Shortly after expiration of the 
emergency rule, the FHWA, through its field offices, asked States to 
continue to allow dromedary equipped munitions carriers as they had 
under the provisions of the emergency rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ December 22, 1989, from the North American Transportation 
Consultants, Inc. A copy of the petition and FHWA action are 
included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the current petition, some of the States that 
voluntarily refrained from imposing fines (after being approached by 
the FHWA following the Gulf War) have gone back to imposing fines. In 
addition, even if the States have enacted remedial legislation, it is 
not always consistent with neighboring States.
    The major point of the 2001 petition is that a Federal standard is 
the only long-term solution to a growing problem

[[Page 65058]]

that directly affects the manner and efficiency with which the U.S. DOD 
carries out its mission with respect to supporting our troops and 
defending the country. The U.S. DOD indicates that there is a constant 
need to move munitions in support of smaller contingencies (other than 
the Gulf War/Desert Storm) such as actions in Iraq, Kosovo, Haiti, and 
Somalia. Taken individually, these do not generate the high visibility 
public interest that may result in the issuance of emergency rules.
    The solution to this problem, as proposed by the U.S. DOD and 
included in the proposed rule published today, is to provide a 
specialized equipment designation for the combination vehicle in 
question. A truck tractor equipped with a dromedary unit operating in 
combination with a semitrailer is proposed to be designated 
``specialized equipment,'' when transporting Class 1 explosives, and/or 
any munitions related security material, as specified by the U.S. DOD 
in compliance with 49 CFR part 177. This designation would require 
States to allow operation of this combination on the National Network 
(NN), and provide reasonable access between the NN and service 
facilities and terminals. In order to accommodate the typical equipment 
in use today for this type of operation, the proposal includes a 
requirement that all States allow these combinations up to an overall 
length of 75 feet.
    This designation would apply only to combinations directly used in 
carrying munitions for the U.S. DOD. When operating empty, the 
designation would continue to apply if the carrier can document that 
hauling munitions is the company's business, or that the most recent 
load consisted of a qualifying munitions load. The designation would 
not apply if any other cargo were being carried in either the 
semitrailer or dromedary unit. For those instances, the combination 
would no longer be considered ``specialized equipment,'' and would 
become subject to State regulations for drom equipped truck truck-
semitrailers.

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 proposed action is a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the 
U.S. DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed action comes 
in response to a request from, and would directly affect activities 
under the direct control, of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD): 
supplying munitions to the military. The proposed action will improve 
the shipment of munitions by standardizing the regulatory control that 
States apply to the vehicles typically used for this activity. The 
anticipated result will be an improvement in the efficiency with which 
munitions are shipped. This potential improvement will aid the national 
security effort with respect to the armed forces, as well as activities 
associated with homeland security.
    The proposed rule provides, at the Federal level, a regulatory 
standard that already exists in many States. Although it would preempt 
restrictions imposed by about 10 States, it would not affect any 
State's ability to discharge a traditional State government function, 
i.e., issuing citations to illegally overlength vehicles.
    The vehicles covered by this proposal are already operating in most 
States, and will not have to be modified in any way to achieve 
compliance. Accordingly, the anticipated annual economic effect of this 
rulemaking will be negligible. The proposed action will not have an 
adverse effect on any other governmental agency, any level of 
government, the industry, or the public, nor will it change any 
compliance or reporting requirements that already exist. The agency has 
decided that a 30-day comment period is needed for this proposal 
because of the critical need to implement the regulation in a timely 
manner. On going military actions require a continuous supply of 
munitions. It is critical that this supply stream is not interrupted.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on 
small entitles and has determined that the action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive order 13132, dated 
August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action 
has sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism summary impact statement.
    The proposal would provide a consistent national regulation 
applying only to vehicles hauling munitions for the Department of 
Defense in support of military activities. The proposal is based on the 
authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 31111(g) that allows the Secretary to 
make the decisions necessary to accommodate specialized equipment. The 
FHWA has also determined that, while this proposed action would preempt 
any inconsistent State law or State regulation, it would not affect the 
State's ability to discharge traditional State government function. The 
States would continue to be able to enforce length restrictions against 
these vehicles. What might change, however, depending on existing State 
law, would be the threshold at which an enforcement action is taken.
    By allowing the vehicle described in this proposal to transport 
munitions, the total number of trucks needed to perform this task would 
be reduced. This reduction, in turn, improves the safety climate on the 
highway system and in a small way slows infrastructure wear. Only a 
small number of States (less than 10) would be affected by this rule, 
as most States already allow the combination vehicle covered by this 
proposed rule. However, due to the needs of the military and the nature 
of the cargo, it is imperative that all States allow the combination 
vehicle under discussion to operate. Even if only one or two States can 
prohibit, or deter this vehicle and its cargo, timely support of the 
military can be severely impacted.
    The FHWA has engaged in consultation with States over this issue in 
past years. In February 1991, as a result of the activities surrounding 
the Desert Shield/Desert Storm campaign, the FHWA issued an emergency 
rule allowing the use of dromedary units to transport munitions (56 FR 
4164, February 1, 1991) for many of the same reasons used in support of 
the current petition. That rule was in effect for 6 months, and was not 
renewed for various reasons deemed important in responding to the 
conditions at that time. After the emergency rule expired,

[[Page 65059]]

in place of a regulatory solution the FHWA urged all States and in 
particular those where enforcement actions were taking place to 
recognize the importance of the situation, and to try and accommodate 
munitions haulers in some manner. According to the U.S. DOD's 
petitions, this ``persuasion'' method appeared to work, at least for a 
few years into the mid-1990's. As this verbal agreement method of 
handling the issue began to breakdown, a few States again began to 
enforce length rules on these combinations, causing interruptions in 
munitions delivery. While inconvenient, these actions did not become 
critically disruptive until the current activities aimed at terrorist 
actions around the world became a national priority.
    Recently, the FHWA solicited comment on the Federalism implications 
of this proposed rule from the National Governors' Association (NGA) as 
representatives for the State officials. On May 9, 2002, the FHWA sent 
a letter seeking comment on the Federalism implications of this 
proposed rule to the NGA\4\. To date, the FHWA has received no response 
or indication of concerns about the Federalism implications of this 
rulemaking from the NGA. The FHWA will continue to adhere to Executive 
Order 13132 when issuing a final rule in this proceeding. Comment is 
solicited specifically on the Federalism implications of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A copy of this letter is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs 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 of 1995

    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 
determined that this proposal does not contain collection of 
information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 
1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result 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. 1532). What is being proposed in each issue of this proposed 
rule would reduce the regulatory requirements that must be complied 
with. This proposed rule does not add any regulatory requirement that 
would require any expenditure by any private sector party, or 
governmental agency.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This proposed 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 proposal 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.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action will not 
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs in Indian tribal 
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 
summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant 
energy action under that order because it is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have 
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 
13211 is not required.

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 section 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: October 17, 2002.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend 23 
CFR part 658 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for part 658 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111-31114; 49 CFR 
1.48(b).

    2. Amend Sec.  658.5 by adding the term ``dromedary unit'', and 
amending the definition of ``tractor or truck tractor'', placing them 
in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  658.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Dromedary unit. A box, deck, or plate mounted behind the cab and 
forward of the fifth wheel on the frame of the power unit of a truck 
tractor-semitrailer combination.
* * * * *
    Tractor or Truck Tractor. The noncargo carrying power unit that 
operates in combination with a semitrailer or trailer, except that a 
truck tractor and semitrailer engaged in the transportation of 
automobiles may

[[Page 65060]]

transport motor vehicles on part of the power unit, and a truck tractor 
equipped with a dromedary unit operating in combination with a 
semitrailer hauling munitions for the U.S. Department of Defense may 
use the dromedary unit to carry a portion of the cargo.
    3. Add Sec.  658.13(e)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  658.13  Length.

* * * * *
    (e) Specialized equipment-- * * *
    (6) Munitions carriers using dromedary equipment. A truck tractor 
equipped with a dromedary unit operating in combination with a 
semitrailer is considered to be specialized equipment, providing the 
combination is transporting Class 1 explosives and/or any munitions 
related security material as specified by the U.S. Department of 
Defense. No State shall impose an overall length limitation of less 
than 75 feet on the combination while in operation.
[FR Doc. 02-27040 Filed 10-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P