Truck Size and Weight; Restrictions on Longer Combination Vehicles and Vehicles With Two or More Cargo-Carrying Units; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUMMARY: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA) restricts the operation of longer combination vehicles (LCV's)

on the Interstate Highway System and commercial motor vehicle (CMV)

combinations with two or more cargo-carrying units on the National

Network (NN) to the types of vehicles in use on or before June 1, 1991,

subject to whatever State restrictions were in effect on that date. The

ISTEA also includes special variances from the June 1 date for Alaska,

Ohio, and Wyoming. As required by the ISTEA and based on information

provided by the States, industry, and the public, the final rule lists

applicable limitations by specific vehicle combination, by State, in

effect on June 1, 1991, and does not further restrict the operation of

any vehicle in lawful operation on or before June 1, 1991. This rule

also establishes criteria for States to make minor adjustments to the

list of limitations; defines certain terms, such as ``nondivisible

load,'' ``beverage container,'' and ``maxi-cube'' vehicle; makes

technical amendments to the list of federally-designated routes on the

NN; and makes other minor changes to conform existing regulations to

the ISTEA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Klimek, Office of Motor

Carrier Information Management, at (202) 366-2212 or Mr. Charles

Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-1354, Federal

Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to

4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except legal Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1023 of the ISTEA (Pub. L. 102-240,

105 Stat. 1914, 1951, codified at 23 U.S.C. 127(d)) required States,

within 60 days of the date of enactment, to submit to the Secretary of

Transportation for publication in the Federal Register 30 days

thereafter a complete list of (1) all operations of LCV's being

conducted as of June 1, 1991; (2) State laws, regulations, and any

other limitations and conditions, including routing-specific and

configuration-specific designations governing the operation of LCV's;

and (3) a copy of such laws, regulations, limitations, and conditions.

An LCV is defined in the ISTEA as any combination of a truck tractor

and two or more trailers or semitrailers which operates on the

Interstate System at a gross vehicle weight greater than 80,000 pounds.

Similarly, section 4006 of the ISTEA (49 U.S.C. app. 2311(j))

required the States to submit a complete list of State length

limitations applicable to CMV combinations with two or more cargo-

carrying units in effect on or before June 1, 1991. This section

prohibits States from allowing the operation (by statute, regulation,

permit, or other means) of CMV's with cargo-carrying unit lengths that

exceed the length, by specific configuration, allowed and in actual,

lawful operation on a regular or periodic basis (including continuing

seasonal operation) on the NN in that State on or before June 1, 1991.

The NN is defined in 23 CFR 658.5, and includes the Interstate System,

with minor exceptions, and selected non-Interstate routes. The non-

Interstate NN highways are listed in appendix A to part 658.

Sections 1023 and 4006 provide that no statute or regulation shall

be included on the list submitted by a State or published by the

Secretary merely on the grounds that it authorized, or could have

authorized, by permit or otherwise, the operation of LCV or CMV

combinations not in actual operation on a regular or periodic basis on

or before June 1, 1991.

States may continue to issue special permits, in accordance with

applicable State laws, for those vehicles and loads which cannot be

easily dismantled or divided. A definition of such nondivisible loads

is included in this final rule.

The ISTEA included three narrow exceptions to the June 1, 1991,

freeze date. Wyoming would have been able to allow the operation of

additional vehicle configurations not in actual operation on June 1,

1991, provided they were authorized by State law not later than

November 3, 1992. No additional vehicles were authorized, however, and

accordingly no additional vehicles are included in appendix C over

those listed in the previous two rulemakings on this issue.

Ohio may allow LCV's with three cargo-carrying units of 28.5 feet

each (not including the truck tractor) not in actual operation on June

1, 1991, to be operated within its boundaries on the 1-mile segment of

Ohio State Route 7 which begins at, and extends south of, Exit 16 on

the Ohio Turnpike. Alaska may continue to allow the operation of CMV's

which were not in actual operation on June 1, 1991, but which were in

actual operation prior to July 6, 1991.

A preliminary list of the information provided by the States in

response to sections 1023 and 4006 was published in the Federal

Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 20, 1992

(57 FR 9900). A second proposed list of vehicles and restrictions,

including corrections, clarifications, and additional material

submitted to the docket in response to the NPRM was published as a

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on February 25, 1993

(58 FR 11450). In the NPRM the information provided by the States was

organized into appendices C and D to part 658; in the SNPRM that

information was combined into a single list of vehicles and

restrictions and presented as a new appendix C. The format of the SNPRM

has been retained for the final rule.

In response to publication of the SNPRM, 154 sets of comments were

received from 136 separate entities. The vast majority of those

comments deal with specifics on the information published in the SNPRM,

and they will be discussed under individual topical headings. Four of

the commenters, however, the American Trucking Associations, Inc.

(ATA), the Wyoming Trucking Association, Inc. (WTA), the Alaska

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the Citizens

for Reliable And Safe Highways (CRASH), provided comments concerning

the rulemaking in general, and the philosophy used by the FHWA in

presenting the information. These particular comments provide an

opportunity for the FHWA to explain its approach.

The ISTEA stipulates that the ``final list'' of LCV operational

requirements for each State be published in the Federal Register not

later than 180 days after the date of enactment. That date was June 15,

1992. The lead comment by the CRASH in its docket submission was that

publication of the final list by the FHWA was ``long overdue.'' The

CRASH contends that since the freeze does not take effect until the

Secretary publishes the final list, the FHWA's delay in publication has

prevented the law from taking effect. This in turn means that LCV's may

today be operating on highways from which Congress intended they be

barred. It concludes this comment by stating that the review and

correction process included with the final rule can be used to make

corrections after publication of the rule.

As the FHWA stated in the Supplementary Information section of the

SNPRM, the content of the States' original responses to the ISTEA

request for LCV operational information covered the full range of what

could be supplied, both in terms of items covered and volume of

material. The diversity of the contents of the responses was so great

that the FHWA determined that before any list could be finalized,

increased uniformity both in terms of items covered and the type of

information would be necessary. Thus, despite the likelihood that the

statutory due date for a final rule might be missed, the FHWA

determined that it was in the public's interest to publish a SNPRM

soliciting further public comment on revisions to the initial list. The

FHWA considered publishing a ``final list'' without this additional

public procedure, but believed that the list published at that stage

would have required numerous subsequent changes. We believe that the

intent of Congress in including a correction process was to take care

of relatively minor single-issue situations which may be discovered

after publication of this final rule, not to make wholesale changes in

a State's submission without good cause.

The WTA expressed concern that the interpretations used by the FHWA

in developing this rule have involved many combination vehicles that,

until passage of the ISTEA, were not considered by anyone to be LCV's.

In a similar vein, Alaska commented that the SNPRM ``seeks to

significantly expand the ISTEA legislation and, we believe, severely

constrains the states' abilities to legitimately regulate commercial

traffic within each state.''

This final rule implements two similar, yet separate provisions of

the ISTEA. Section 1023, as discussed earlier, involves LCV's and

includes an LCV definition. The scope of vehicle combinations covered

by this section is narrow. The definition requires that an LCV

combination include a truck tractor, which by previous congressional

action (section 411(f), Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of

1982) is defined as a noncargo-carrying power unit and two or more

trailers or semitrailers. The combination must operate on the

Interstate System, and its gross vehicle weight must be in excess of

80,000 pounds. The vehicles listed in appendix C as a result of this

statutory definition include only what might best be described as the

``traditional'' LCV's, that is, the ``Rocky Mountain'' and ``Turnpike''

Doubles and the ``Triple.'' Under the definition of LCV provided by the

ISTEA, it is true that the State of Alaska has no LCV's because it has

no Interstate System mileage in the sense used in the ISTEA; that is,

Alaska does not have Interstate System mileage designated under 23

U.S.C. 103(e), 139(a), or 139(b). Accordingly, all references to LCV's

for Alaska have been deleted from this final rule.

Alaska does, however, have mileage that is part of the NN. Section

4006 of the ISTEA requires the FHWA to include in the final list ``any

commercial motor vehicle combination * * * with 2 or more cargo

carrying units.'' A ``cargo-carrying unit'' is defined as ``any portion

of a commercial motor vehicle combination * * * used for carrying

cargo, including a trailer, semitrailer, or the cargo carrying section

of a single unit truck.'' While section 1023 is relatively narrow in

scope, section 4006 has very widespread applicability. If, as the WTA

contends, vehicles not previously considered to be LCV's are covered by

this final rule, it is because of section 4006. This section is also

the reason that vehicles are listed in appendix C for Alaska. Thus,

vehicles not previously considered LCV's are included in this final

rule, because the statute applies to more than just LCV's.

The ATA expressed concern that the FHWA's attempt to organize the

vehicles subject to the freeze into four basic categories requires the

FHWA to go beyond the role established for it in the ISTEA. The ATA

contends that the ISTEA limits the role of the Secretary to reviewing

for accuracy and publishing State information and that the

categorization made by the FHWA involves the interpretation of State

laws and regulations. Similarly, Alaska commented that the nomenclature

used in designating the four basic categories ``is not universally

acceptable.'' The categories used in appendix C, as included in the

SNPRM, were (1) Rocky Mountain Doubles, (2) Turnpike Doubles, (3)

Triples, and (4) Other. These names were chosen in an attempt to

describe the vehicles covered by the freeze in terms commonly used in

the trucking industry. Since there is no industry-wide or statutory

definition for categories 1, 2, or 3, a degree of confusion remained as

to just what vehicle combinations were covered, especially by

categories 1 and 2.

The ISTEA required the FHWA to list vehicles by ``configuration

type'' (section 1023) or ``specific configuration'' (section 4006). In

creating the basic configuration categories used in the NPRM and SNPRM,

the FHWA believed it had to go beyond just publishing State-submitted

information. For example, many States do not differentiate between a

``Rocky Mountain'' and ``Turnpike'' Double in the statutes or

regulations which authorize their operation. Typically, these States

allow a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer, or a truck tractor and two

trailing units where each trailing unit can be up to some maximum

length. Interpretations were required to develop the maximum parameters

that would apply if the State did differentiate by vehicle type.

The FHWA has re-examined the meaning of ``configuration,'' however,

and determined that there is no statutory requirement to classify

vehicle combinations according to industry usage.

In order to reduce confusion and simplify the description of

vehicles covered by the freeze, the vehicles described in appendix C of

this final rule have therefore been regrouped into three categories:

(1) Truck tractor and two trailing units, (2) Truck tractor and three

trailing units, and (3) Other. This preserves the freeze required by

the ISTEA without limiting the discretion allowed by some States before

June 1, 1991.

Vehicles Submitted by States but Excepted From or Not Subject to

Section 4006 of the ISTEA

In preparing the March 20, 1992, NPRM and the February 25, 1993,

SNPRM, the FHWA decided not to include certain vehicle combinations

submitted by the States, which it determined Congress did not intend to

include in the ISTEA freeze. No additional information regarding

conditions, routes, or authority to operate these vehicles was

required. In addition to describing the categories of vehicles proposed

for exemption, a detailed listing by State of the vehicles submitted

but exempted was contained in the SNPRM.

In its comments, the ATA urged the FHWA to include in the

regulatory language of the final rule the list of exempted vehicles

included in the preamble to the SNPRM. The basis for the ATA's

suggestion was ``to ensure that only the vehicles intended by Congress

are restricted and to help clarify the intent of the restriction for

enforcement and judicial purposes.'' The ATA's proposal was to include

the list of excepted vehicles in an expanded definition of LCV in the

final rule.

The categories of multiple cargo unit vehicles exempted from

coverage by the freeze include: (1) Truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer

and truck tractor-semitrailer-semitrailer combinations with a maximum

length of the individual cargo units of 28.5 feet or less, (2)

conventional automobile and boat transporters with an overall length of

65 feet or less, (3) stinger-steered automobile and boat transporters

with an overall length of 75 feet or less, (4) truck-trailer and truck-

semitrailer combinations with an overall length of 65 feet or less, (5)

maxi-cubes, (6) most tow trucks with vehicles in tow, and (7)

combination vehicles which include a truck tractor containing a

dromedary box, deck, or plate, and one semitrailer or trailer. With

respect to the dromedary equipped vehicle exclusion, strict

interpretation of ISTEA section 4006 would include this equipment under

the freeze. By its function, a dromedary box, deck, or plate is a

cargo-carrying unit. When combined with a semitrailer, the result is

technically a combination with two cargo-carrying units, thus

subjecting the combination to the freeze. However, dromedary equipped

truck tractors in actual operation on December 1, 1982, are

grandfathered under Sec. 658.13(f), causing a combination consisting of

one of these units and a semitrailer to be considered as simply a truck

tractor-semitrailer under the provisions of part 658. Dromedary

equipped semitrailer combinations are a minor segment of the industry

which probably escaped the notice of Congress, and which would require

a good deal of additional time and effort to list. Should States or

carriers try to evade the ISTEA freeze mandate by expanding the size of

these unlisted combinations, the FHWA may have to initiate rulemaking

to close this loophole.

The exclusion information is codified by this final rule at

Sec. 658.23(b)(1) through (b)(5). The list of exempted vehicles by

State included in the SNPRM has not been codified, however, because of

the likelihood that it is not a complete list. The original instruction

to the States about these vehicles was to submit anything they thought

might be covered by the freeze. Since the effect of ATA's comment would

be to exempt only those vehicle combinations listed, some States could

be penalized in terms of allowing certain vehicles simply because they

reviewed the guidelines and made a decision that certain vehicles were

not involved in the freeze coverage.

The definition of LCV used throughout this proceeding is that

established in the ISTEA. In the interest of avoiding confusion with

respect to terminology, the FHWA will not amend the LCV definition at

this time.

Documentation of Actual Operation

Under the terms of ISTEA section 1023, an LCV may continue to

operate only if on or before June 1, 1991, the specific configuration

was (1) legally allowed in the State and (2) was in actual lawful

operation on a regular or periodic basis. Under section 4006, the

overall length of two or more cargo-carrying units used in a specific

configuration may not exceed the length allowed by State law, and in

actual lawful operation on a regular or periodic basis, on or before

June 1, 1991. If a specific multi-trailer configuration was authorized

by State statute or regulation, but not in actual lawful operation on a

regular basis on or before June 1, 1991, it may not now be put into

service.

All of the vehicles listed in appendix C meet the requirements for

continued operation set forth in ISTEA sections 1023 and 4006.

The information on these vehicles which the States supplied in

response to the ISTEA, the March 20, 1992, NPRM and the February 25,

1993, SNPRM, satisfies the legal requirement for operation, i.e.,

authorized by State law. In a similar manner, various commenters,

responding to a request contained in the SNPRM, have documented the

actual operation on a regular or periodic basis of the vehicle

combinations listed.

The SNPRM requested information, from any source, to show the

actual operation of vehicles described in appendix C. While a copy of

the special permit under which operations occurred was listed as the

preferred means of satisfying the documentation requirement, any item

which could support operation of these vehicles would be considered as

acceptable.

In an early response to the docket, the ATA expressed concern that

the FHWA was placing a ``tremendous burden on State DOT's and the

trucking industry to satisfy a totally new requirement in a very short

time period.'' The SNPRM allowed for a 45-day comment period with April

12, 1993, as the docket closing date. The ATA also stated that ``(i)t

is unlikely that two year old copies of the actual permit will be

available,'' and that working with the permit issuing offices in each

State to locate these records would ``no doubt be a very time consuming

and cumbersome process.'' As an alternative, the ATA suggested that the

FHWA allow the submission of an affidavit from a carrier and/or State

agency to satisfy the documentation requirement, and further that a

time extension be granted to allow appropriate review and certification

of these documents, if allowed. A request for a time extension for the

docket was also received from the WTA and Coastal Chem Sales Company of

Cheyenne, Wyoming. The need to accurately comply with the actual

operation documentation requirement was given as the reason for the

request.

In its comments, the CRASH stated that the proof requirement

contained in the SNPRM was ``far too broad, and (could) easily lead to

mistake or fraud.'' That organization argued that anything less than

``verifiable documentary evidence created and dated on or before June

1, 1991, specifically detailing the vehicle length, weight,

configuration and routes traveled'' would fail to comply with ISTEA

requirements.

In reviewing the time extension requests, the FHWA agreed that more

time was needed to help assure that accurate and complete documentation

information, including affidavits, was submitted to the docket. On

April 14, 1993, a 45-day extension of the comment period, to May 27,

1993, was published in the Federal Register at 58 FR 19367. The type of

information the CRASH argued the FHWA should require appears to exceed

the documentation most States demand of LCV operators. It would distort

the purpose of the ISTEA freeze to ban certain vehicles or routes

simply because the States lacked the foresight to issue permits that

met the maximum possible data requirements of a Federal law not yet

enacted.

An affidavit made by an individual familiar with the issue at hand

is both reasonable and within the documentation parameters established

by the SNPRM. The authenticity of any document proposed as evidence to

support activity occurring over 2\1/2\ years ago could be challenged by

any party. Of the possible items of documentation which could be

submitted, a notarized affidavit may be the least susceptible to

alteration. It represents an individual's witnessed, sworn statement.

An affidavit could, of course, be fraudulent, and the FHWA would be

reluctant to take regulatory action based solely on an affidavit

without other support. In fact, however, affidavits are merely one kind

of information which the FHWA has combined with other types of

documentation to demonstrate the operation of vehicles that State law

and/or regulation allows. In addition, section 1023(c) of the ISTEA

amended 23 U.S.C. 141(b) by adding at the end the following sentence:

``Each State shall also certify that it is enforcing and complying with

the provisions of section 127(d) of this title and section 411(j) of

the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App.

2311(j))'' (emphasis added). Additional discussion of the certification

change is contained elsewhere in this document. However, for this

discussion the statement means that if a State is found not to be

complying with the ISTEA LCV requirements, it will be subject to

Federal-aid highway funding sanctions involving millions of dollars

annually.

Documentation of operation of the vehicles listed in appendix C for

each State was provided to the docket by the following sources. All

original submissions are filed in docket number 92-15.

Alaska: Five carriers, State Department of Commerce and Economic

Development

Arizona: Seven carriers, one shipper, State Department of

Transportation (DOT)

Colorado: Seven carriers, State DOT

Florida: Three carriers, three private fleets

Hawaii: One private fleet, State DOT

Idaho: Fifteen carriers, six private fleets, one agricultural

cooperative, one owner-operator, State DOT

Indiana: Five carriers, State DOT

Kansas: Five carriers, one private fleet, State DOT, State Turnpike

Authority

Massachusetts: Two carriers, State Turnpike Authority

Michigan: State DOT

Mississippi: State DOT

Missouri: Three carriers, State Highway & Transportation Department

Montana: Ten carriers, one shipper, five private fleets, one owner-

operator, State DOT

Nebraska: State Department of Roads

Nevada: Thirteen carriers, one shipper, one private fleet, one

agricultural cooperative, one owner-operator

New Mexico: One carrier, State Taxation and Revenue Department

New York: Two carriers, State Motor Truck Association, State DOT,

State Thruway Authority

North Dakota: Four carriers, four private fleets, State DOT

Ohio: Four carriers, State Turnpike Commission

Oklahoma: Nine carriers, four private fleets

Oregon: Fourteen carriers, three private fleets, one agricultural

cooperative, State DOT

South Dakota: Four carriers, one shipper, three private fleets,

State Trucking Association, State Highway Patrol, State DOT

Utah: Sixteen carriers, one shipper, three private fleets, one

agricultural cooperative, one owner-operator, State Motor Truck

Association, State DOT

Washington: Five carriers, one shipper, two private fleets, one

agricultural cooperative, one owner-operator, State DOT

Wyoming: Six carriers, two shippers, four private fleets, one owner-

operator, three individuals, State DOT

The following vehicle combinations included in the SNPRM, or

comments thereto, have not been included in appendix C for the reasons

given.

California: ``Triple,'' including a 28-foot semitrailer, two 28-

foot trailers, an overall length of 107.4 feet, and a maximum gross

vehicle weight of 111,000 pounds. ``Rocky Mountain Double,''

including a 48-foot semitrailer, a 28-foot trailer, an overall

length of 93.2 feet, and a maximum gross vehicle weight of 106,850

pounds. ``Turnpike Double,'' including a 48-foot semitrailer, a 48-

foot trailer, an overall length of 116.7 feet, and a maximum gross

vehicle weight of 122,650 pounds.

Two permits were issued by the California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans) for ``Triples'' at the request of the

California legislature in 1971 in order to conduct a test to evaluate

the possible allowance of ``Triples'' in California. In 1983, permits

were issued to allow the operation of the above described vehicle

combinations in order to conduct an over the road test of these

vehicles. The State, in its comments, points out that the 1983 tests

were conducted, in part, to assist the FHWA in its study of the costs

and benefits of a national intercity LCV route network.

Based on these two occurrences, California claims the right to

issue permits for good cause for the future operation of these vehicles

up to the limits stated.

The FHWA has rejected California's claim because it fails to meet

the standard for ``regular or periodic'' use established by Congress in

writing the ISTEA. According to the Conference Report on the ISTEA

(H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 314 (1991)), ``Use of

an LCV on only one or two occasions pursuant to a special permit would

not provide a basis for satisfactorily certifying grandfather rights or

operations under this subsection.'' Clearly the California situation

falls within the scope of the congressional guidance. ``Triples'' were

allowed twice, for very brief periods 12 years apart, the last being

more than 10 years ago. ``Turnpike Doubles'' and ``Rocky Mountain

Doubles'' were authorized only once, over 10 years ago, during a single

5-day period. These occurrences do not constitute ``regular or

periodic'' use.

Connecticut: Vehicle and trailer for carrying poles, lumber,

piling, or structural units.

No documentation was received in the docket to support the actual

operation of this vehicle on or before June 1, 1991. This vehicle was

originally included because it appeared to meet the LCV or extra-length

multi-unit commercial vehicle requirements. This vehicle is made up of

a truck tractor and a dolly unit. Since the weight of a cargo, for

example utility poles, is carried partially by the truck tractor and

partially by the dolly unit, the argument might be made that this

vehicle has two cargo-carrying units.

In fact, the load and rear dolly combine to create a de facto

semitrailer. Truck tractor-semitrailers are not subject to the freeze.

Delaware: Truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer, with a cargo-

carrying length of 62 feet.

No documentation was received in the docket to support the actual

operation of this vehicle on or before June 1, 1991. The initial

submission by Delaware, to satisfy the LCV freeze requirements,

indicated that the listed combination was allowed by State law wherein

each trailing unit could be up to 29 feet long. The 62-foot length was

derived by adding 4 feet for interunit spacing to the twin 29-foot

dimension. Due to the de-listing of a vehicle combination with twin 29-

foot units, the maximum length of any one unit in a multi-unit

combination vehicle reverts to 28.5 feet, that allowed by the STAA of

1982.

Louisiana: ``Rocky Mountain Double-LCV,'' with a cargo- carrying

length of 75 feet.

No documentation was received in the docket to support the actual

operation of this vehicle on or before June 1, 1991. The initial

submission by Louisiana, to satisfy the LCV freeze requirements,

indicated the listed combination was allowed by State law wherein each

trailing unit could be up to 30 feet long. The 75-foot length was

derived by adding the maximum interunit spacing allowed by State

regulation of 15 feet to the twin 30-foot dimension. Due to the de-

listing of a vehicle combination with twin 30-foot units, the maximum

length of any one unit in a multi-unit combination vehicle reverts to

28.5 feet, that allowed by the STAA of 1982.

New Hampshire: Truck-trailer combination with a cargo-carrying

length of 85 feet.

No documentation was received in the docket to support the actual

operation of this vehicle on or before June 1, 1991. The initial

submission by New Hampshire, to satisfy the LCV freeze requirements,

indicated the listed combination was allowed because State law does not

prohibit a straight truck of up to 40 feet long from pulling a trailer

that may be up to 48 feet long. Due to the de-listing of the described

vehicle combination, the maximum cargo-carrying length of any truck-

trailer combination on NN highways reverts to 58 feet. This length is

derived by subtracting 7 feet for the cab from the 65-foot overall

length for this combination allowed by this rule without a requirement

to document actual operations. Off the NN, the maximum lengths allowed

by State law continue to apply.

List of ISTEA Vehicle Operations and Conditions

In addition to the lists of vehicle configurations, the ISTEA also

required each State to submit a copy of all its statutes, regulations,

limitations, and conditions which apply to the operation of each of the

LCV's or extra-length vehicles reported as in use on or before June 1,

1991.

The content of the States' original responses to this request

covered the full range of what could be supplied, both in terms of

items covered and volume of material. The diversity of the contents of

the responses was so great that the FHWA determined that before any

list could be finalized, increased uniformity would be necessary. One

of the subheadings for each LCV or extra-length vehicle described in

the NPRM was ``Operational Conditions.'' The information in the NPRM

was taken directly from the initial State responses to the LCV

information request contained in the ISTEA, regardless of content. In

those cases where another document was referenced, the FHWA attempted

to summarize that document. Because of the differences in State-

provided responses, there was little consistency as to coverage or

depth. Therefore, in addition to asking for comments, the NPRM also

asked the States and all other sources, including industry trade

groups, either to reformat existing information, or to provide new

information following a suggested format. Those States which allow

LCV's or extra-length vehicles were requested to provide the

operational condition information in the following subheadings: WEIGHT,

DRIVER, VEHICLE, PERMIT, and ACCESS.

The information included in the SNPRM reflected the States' and

other responses to the NPRM request.

The SNPRM included specific vehicle descriptions for 30 States.

Comments were received concerning those descriptions for 23 States. The

vehicle descriptions included in appendix C to part 658 by this final

rule have been modified, where appropriate, by comments received and by

the change in categories described earlier. Comments, changes, and

corrections made to appendix C information will be discussed by State,

by subheadings, in the same order that they appear in appendix C:

STATE NAME

COMBINATION:

LENGTH OF THE CARGO-CARRYING UNITS:

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS WEIGHT:

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

WEIGHT:

DRIVER:

VEHICLE:

PERMIT:

ACCESS:

ROUTES:

LEGAL CITATIONS:

OTHER COMMENTS:

Other comments considered, that did not result in a change, will be

discussed at the end. Any heading not included in the discussion means

that the information included in the SNPRM was accurate, and the same

information has been included in appendix C as published by this final

rule.

Alaska

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

WEIGHT: The State DOT commented that the weight restriction

discussion in the SNPRM for Alaska should not apply because the section

1023 freeze applies only to the Interstate System, and Alaska does not

have Interstate System mileage designated under 23 U.S.C. 103, 139(a),

or 139(b). The FHWA agrees with this comment. Accordingly, the weight

condition for each vehicle described has been revised to indicate that

a carrier has to be in compliance with State laws and regulations and

does not list maximum weight limit values. In addition, because LCV's,

as defined in the ISTEA, do not operate in Alaska due to the lack of

Interstate System mileage, the ``LCV'' notation previously included by

the combination description has been removed.

VEHICLE: The State indicated that the hours of operation for three

trailing unit combinations are established by permit and not by

regulation. Accordingly, this has been removed from the ``VEHICLE''

discussion.

PERMIT: The SNPRM noted that permits were required for divisible

loads. The State commented that this was incorrect. Permits are only

required for nondivisible loads.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH stated that Alaska Administrative Permit Manual Section

11.6 provides that ``all oversize or overweight vehicles not in convoy

shall maintain a minimum distance of 800 to 1,500 feet from any other

oversize vehicle or vehicle with load and pilot car traveling in the

same direction on the same highway in rural areas.'' Since Alaska is

not contiguous to any other State this type of information would be of

little use to any out-of-State trucker. Any vehicle requiring a permit

would be subject to the Alaska permit rules which would be given to the

driver when the permit was obtained. Therefore, in view of its limited

usefulness in terms of general information, we will not add this

provision to appendix C.

Section 4006(a) of the ISTEA provides that Alaska ``may allow

operation of commercial motor vehicle combinations which were not in

actual operation on June 1, 1991, but which were in actual operation

prior to July 6, 1991.'' Verification has been furnished that

``Triples'' with trailers not over 45 feet in length were in actual

operation under permit prior to July 6, 1991. The CRASH believes that

the operation of ``Triples'' after June 1, 1991, was authorized only on

an experimental basis as provided in 17 AAC 25.106(b)(4). However, the

ISTEA allows the continued operation of any combinations put into

service between June 2 and July 5, 1991, without further condition.

Therefore, ``Triples'' may continue to operate, as indicated in

appendix C.

The State advised that under Alaska regulations, a truck tractor

equipped with a dromedary box is defined as not being cargo carrying.

Dromedary boxes do in fact carry cargo. However, for the reasons given

above, the FHWA has decided for the time being not to list the cargo-

carrying length of dromedary tractor-semitrailer combinations.

The State indicated that an additional route, AK-1 from Palmer-

Wasilla Highway Junction to Wishbone Hill Coal Access Road, must be

added to Alaska's routes chart under the caption for ``Rocky Mountain

Double-LCV'' (58 FR 11467) of the SNPRM. However, this is incorrect

because the freeze on vehicle length is applicable only on the NN, and

this is not an NN route. The State is free to regulate the size and

weight of vehicles off the NN as it sees fit.

ARIZONA

LEGAL CITATIONS:

The CRASH stated that Arizona statute ARS 28-1011.N should not be

shown as authority for permitting overweight vehicles on the NN since

it only covers the issuance of permits on other than NN routes. We

agree, since the provisions of Section 4006 of the ISTEA apply only to

vehicles on the NN. Therefore, ARS 28-1011.N has been deleted from the

``Legal Citations'' for Arizona in appendix C.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH stated that the legal size for ``Rocky Mountain Doubles''

is 90 feet, and not 92 feet as shown in proposed appendix C contained

in the SNPRM. Arizona statute ARS 28-1011.A provides that the Arizona

DOT may issue oversize permits for vehicles exceeding otherwise

applicable length limits on the State highway system. Further, the

change in categories from those listed in the SNPRM makes this a moot

point insofar as the final appendix C is concerned.

The CRASH stated that the State may not issue ``verbal policy

directives'' authorizing overlength vehicles. It adds that the State

appears to be violating its own statutes. The question cannot be

resolved in this proceeding but the FHWA will investigate the issue in

connection with Arizona's certification of compliance with 49 U.S.C.

app. 2311(j).

The CRASH also stated that weight limits for LCV's on US 89A and I-

15 cannot be determined under ARS 28-1011.N. The FHWA agrees. Since the

ISTEA freezes the weight of LCV's only on the Interstate System, we

will not further consider weight limits on US 89A. The State indicated

that the maximum allowable weight limits for all LCV's on the

Interstate System is 111,000 pounds, except for ``Triples,'' which it

said are subject to a maximum allowable weight of 123,500 pounds. The

111,000-pound maximum weight limits are specifically authorized under

ARS 28-1011.M, and higher maximum weights may be authorized under ARS

28-1011.A on the State highway system. Since the State indicated that

the highest weight authorized for ``Triples'' on or before June 1,

1991, was 123,500 pounds, that value is retained in appendix C.

COLORADO

LENGTH OF THE CARGO-CARRYING UNITS:

Appendix C in the SNPRM showed the cargo-carrying length for

``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' in Colorado as 85 feet, for ``Turnpike

Doubles'' 95 feet, for ``Triples'' 95 feet, and for truck-trailer

combinations as 78 feet. However, on June 1, 1991, the State actually

allowed one of the trailing units in ``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' to be

up to 48 feet long and the other up to 28 feet 6 inches long, with not

over 15 feet of hitch between the two units, or a total cargo-carrying

length of 91.5 feet. The State also allowed ``Turnpike Doubles'' to

have two trailers of approximately equal length, not to exceed 48 feet

each, with a hitch not to exceed 15 feet in length. The resulting

cargo-carrying length becomes 111 feet. Revised appendix C has been

changed to reflect these values.

The State allowed ``Triples'' to have three trailing units, not to

exceed 28.5 feet, with a 15-foot hitch between the trailing units.

Appendix C has been changed to a cargo-carrying length of 115.5 feet to

reflect this.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

PERMIT: The State requested that a new sentence be added after the

first sentence under the ``Permit'' provisions for ``Rocky Mountain

Doubles'' in appendix C as follows: ``Also, the vehicle must purchase

an overweight permit pursuant to C.R.S. 42-4-409(11)(a)(II)(A), (B), or

(C), and comply with Rule 4-15 in the rules pertaining to Extra-Legal

Vehicles or Loads.'' The State also commented that the time

restrictions on the operation of ``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' in the next

sentence should be changed from 7 a.m. to 6 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 3

p.m. and that the sentence in parentheses should read as follows:

``('Rocky Mountain' doubles not operating at greater than the legal

maximum weight of 80,000 pounds are subject to different hours of

operation restrictions. Refer to rules pertaining to the Operation of

Longer Vehicle Combinations on Designated State Highway Segments).''

The CRASH said motor carriers that operate ISTEA vehicles must have an

established safety program as provided in Chapter 9 of the Colorado

Department of Highways Rules and Regulations for Operation of Longer

Vehicle Combinations on Designated State Highway Segments. Elements of

the program include compliance with minimum safety standards at 8 CCR

1507-1; hazardous materials regulations at 8 CCR 1507-7, 8, and 9;

Colorado Uniform Motor Vehicle Law, Articles 1 through 4 of Title 42,

C.R.S., as amended; and Public Utility Commission's regulations at 4

CCR 723-6, 8, 15, 22, and 23. Revised appendix C includes these

changes.

ROUTES:

Appendix C in the SNPRM indicated routes on which ``Rocky Mountain

Doubles'' could travel as ``National Network routes except that LCV's

may not operate on I-70 from Exit 90 to Exit 259.'' However, the State

indicated that they essentially may operate only on the Interstate

System. Appendix C has been amended accordingly.

LEGAL CITATIONS:

The State said that in the ``Legal Citations'' for ``Rocky Mountain

Doubles,'' 42-4-407(1)(C)(III)(A), should be corrected by changing the

capital ``C'' to a small ``c.'' It also said that provisions following

this citation should be deleted and the following added: ``LVC's must

comply with Longer Vehicle Combination Rules and the Extra-Legal

Vehicles or Load Rules. However, when the rules address the same

subject, the LVC, since it is operating at greater than 80,000 pounds,

must comply with the Extra-Legal Vehicles or Loads Rules. Such rules

are: 4-1-2 and 4-1-3 concerning holiday travel restrictions, 4-1-5

concerning hours of operation restrictions, 4-8 concerning minimum

distance between vehicles and 4-15 concerning maximum allowable gross

weight.'' These changes have been made.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The State pointed out that no maximum gross weight is shown in

connection with the truck-trailer combination listed in appendix C.

This is correct because a truck-trailer combination is not an LCV as

defined in the ISTEA since it is not a combination of a truck tractor

and two or more trailers or semitrailers. Therefore, its maximum weight

on the Interstates is not frozen as of June 1, 1991, but remains as

provided in 23 U.S.C. 127(a). The listing for this combination has been

changed in appendix C by adding ``WEIGHT'' as a separate category under

``Operational Conditions'' and indicating that the vehicle must be in

compliance with State laws and regulations.

The State also noted that ``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' could operate

from milepoint 8.9 to milepoint 9.7 on State Highway 133 in Delta.

However, as this is not on the Interstate System or the NN, the ISTEA

freeze provisions do not apply. Accordingly, the route is not listed in

the vehicle descriptions. The CRASH said that prior to June 1, 1991,

``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' could operate on I-70 from the Utah State

Line only to State Highway 65 (Exit 49). In fact, the route was

extended from State Highway 65 to State Highway 13 (Exit 90) on April

5, 1990. Since this was prior to June 1, 1991, ``Rocky Mountain

Doubles'' may continue to operate from the Utah State Line to State

Highway 13 (Exit 90) after that date.

The State also commented that the freeze on the operation of LCV's

on the Interstate System and the freeze on the operation of CMV's with

two or more cargo-carrying units on the NN may create administrative

and enforcement problems. However, it also recognized that this arises

from the ISTEA and cannot be changed in this proceeding.

FLORIDA

COMBINATION:

The State commented that Florida law and rules contain no

references to ``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' and that all references to

them in appendix C should be deleted. The revision of the categories

used in appendix C, as presented by this final rule, addresses the

State's concern over nomenclature.

OTHER COMMENTS:

Florida commented that the 106-foot length previously given for

``Turnpike Doubles,'' now shown for a truck tractor and two trailing

unit combination, is incorrect. The maximum length should be 116 feet.

The 116-foot dimension is the maximum overall vehicle length

established by State regulation. Appendix C is a listing which includes

maximum cargo-carrying length. The convention used throughout this

rulemaking is that, in the absence of any information to the contrary,

cargo-carrying length for a truck tractor combination is the maximum

overall length minus 10 feet. Thus, 106 feet remains the cargo-carrying

length value for Florida's truck tractor and two trailing unit

combination.

The State also expressed concern over the fact that the vehicles

listed for Florida are not considered LCV's as provided in the ISTEA

definition, because the route on which they operate, Florida's

Turnpike, is not part of the Interstate System. The State made the

point that the twin-trailer combinations which operate on the Florida

Turnpike match the configuration and weight criteria for LCV's, and

only an administrative action, whether or not the Turnpike is part of

the Interstate System, keeps them from being designated as such.

Until the ISTEA was enacted, the meaning of the term LCV differed

from one region to another, and sometimes depended on the commodity

being transported. By providing a definition of LCV, Congress has

provided a basis for describing these combinations on a national basis.

Any combination which does not meet all of the criteria, including

operation on the Interstate System, is not to be considered an LCV.

IDAHO

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH stated that the SNPRM omitted the provisions for time-of-

travel restrictions for overlegal loads published in Idaho

Transportation Department Rule 39.C.11.5, and the requirement that an

applicant for a permit certify that the load is indivisible. These

restrictions apply only to nondivisible loads as indicated in Rule

39.C.11.4.c. There are no time-of-day restrictions for Extra-Length

Vehicle Combinations operating under permits issued pursuant to Rule

39.C.22. The CRASH also indicated that time-of-travel restrictions

applied to overweight loads under Rule 39.C.11.5. Although the rule is

entitled ``Time of Travel Restrictions for Overlegal Loads,'' the text

deals only with ``oversize'' loads. The CRASH said that the SNPRM

omitted seasonal weight limits in Rule 39.C.14. The Rule simply

provides that such limits will be posted. Therefore, they are in the

same category as speed limits or other general restrictions that all

vehicles must observe.

The ``Dromedary tractor semitrailer'' combination listed in the

SNPRM has been removed from appendix C due to the exclusion of such

combinations from the list as discussed earlier. The ``Dromedary

tractor semitrailer trailer'' combination has also been removed from

appendix C due to the dromedary equipment exclusion. This vehicle is

covered by the listing for the truck tractor and two trailing unit

LCV's.

INDIANA

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: The CRASH commented that the SNPRM omitted several

equipment requirements for all LCV combinations including those for

emergency equipment, safety chains, lights, reflectors, and for three

trailing unit combinations, spray-suppressant mud flaps. All of these

items have been added to appendix C.

PERMIT: The CRASH indicated that maximum speed and the State wind

operational restrictions were omitted from the permit discussion. These

have been added.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH also commented that the State 3-inch sway limitation was

not included in the SNPRM. The requirement was, in fact, included in

the SNPRM and has been retained in this final rule.

KANSAS

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS WEIGHT:

The State commented that the maximum allowable gross weight listed

for ``Triples'' in the SNPRM was incorrectly listed as 110,000 pounds

and that the value should instead be 120,000 pounds. The 110,000-pound

limit applies only to three trailing unit operations on I-70 between

the Colorado State Line and Goodland. The Kansas Turnpike allows these

combinations to operate at 120,000 pounds. This change has been made in

appendix C.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

Under the Operational Conditions described for ``Triple--LCV'' in

the SNPRM, the phrase at the beginning of the section ``called special

vehicle combinations (SVC's) in Kansas,'' has been deleted in appendix

C at the request of the State. The term ``SVC'' applies only to

operations on I-70 between the Colorado State Line and Goodland. It

does not apply on the Turnpike.

DRIVER: At the request of the State, the wording has been corrected

to accurately differentiate between SVC operations and operations on

the Turnpike.

VEHICLE: The CRASH commented that vehicle equipment requirements

concerning lateral movement in the travel lane and anti-spray devices

were not included in the SNPRM for SVC operations. Both items are now

included in appendix C.

PERMIT: The CRASH commented that the permit discussion for SVC

operations did not include the requirement to have insurance coverage

of certain amounts. Appendix C has been changed to reflect the

requirement to have insurance coverage, however, the amounts are not

included in appendix C. The amount of insurance coverage is not an item

that is directly related to the size and weight of LCV's.

ACCESS: SVC access was not included in the SNPRM because SVC

operations were not included. Appendix C now includes SVC access

provisions according to comments provided by the State.

ROUTES:

I-70 in Western Kansas: Kansas allows SVC's on the short segment of

I-70 from Goodland to the Colorado State line. Kansas submitted this

information and it was published in the NPRM. The FHWA subsequently

learned that SVC operations began on that route only on May 31, 1991,

the day before the June 1 freeze date.

The ISTEA provides that LCV's (including SVC's) must have operated

``on a regular or periodic basis'' on or before June 1, 1991 (23 U.S.C.

127(d)(1)(A)). According to the ISTEA conference report:

To be considered ``regular or periodic'' use, operations must

have occurred at recurring intervals over a period of time.

Moreover, periodic operations must have occurred on an intermittent

but consistent basis. Use of an LCV on only one or two occasions

pursuant to a special permit would not provide a basis for

satisfactorily certifying grandfather rights or operations * * * .

(H.R. Rep. No. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at 314 (1991))

Because SVC operations on I-70 did not appear to be ``regular or

periodic'' by this standard, the FHWA revised the SNPRM to remove the

Goodland segment from the list of authorized Kansas LCV routes.

Thirty-seven commenters discussed this subject, and all of them

favored restoration of the I-70 route. Yellow Corporation, the parent

company of Yellow Freight, explained in detail how the problem arose.

Yellow Freight uses a hub and spoke system. The company commented that

``(w)here distances between hubs do not allow for the journey to be

made within the ten-hour federal drivers hours of service limit, Yellow

Freight has established driver relay facilities (where) * * * drivers *

* * are changed, with the equipment moving on to meet customer service

demands.'' Yellow Freight has for 25 years maintained a driver relay

facility at Goodland which serves vehicles moving between its Kansas

City and Denver hubs. ``Linehaul drivers leave Kansas City westbound to

Goodland, layover and return eastbound the next day. Goodland-domiciled

linehaul drivers operate a turn between Goodland and the Denver hub.''

Colorado authorized triple-trailer and other large combinations in

1989. Unlike competitors with facilities in eastern Colorado, Yellow

Freight was unable to use these vehicles between Goodland and Denver

because Kansas did not allow them on I-70. Rather than move its relay

facility into Colorado or forgo the economic advantages of ``Triples,''

Yellow Freight asked Kansas in September 1989, to allow SVC's on

I-70 between Goodland and the Colorado line. The Kansas Department of

Transportation (KDOT) announced a rulemaking proposal in January 1990,

that would have allowed ``Triples'' on all Kansas Interstates. The

Kansas Railroad Association (KRA) responded by having a bill to ban

``Triples'' introduced in the legislature; the KDOT withdrew its

proposal. Yellow Freight and the KRA negotiated a compromise which,

among other things, allowed triple-trailer combinations on the Goodland

segment of I-70. The bill was approved on April 12, 1990, and SVC

regulations to implement it were promulgated on March 4, 1991. Yellow

Freight ran one ``Triple'' on May 31, 1991, and a second on June 1.

Both Yellow Freight and the KDOT place much of the blame for delays

in issuing the permits required to start

I-70 operations on the FHWA's failure to clarify its position on the

State's grandfather rights in a timely fashion. The FHWA and a number

of States--not including Kansas--had long disagreed on the question of

whether LCV operations were legitimately grandfathered. One of the

purposes of the LCV freeze was to resolve these disputes by ratifying

actual operations allowed by State law on June 1, 1991. The KDOT's

announced intention to allow SVC's on I-70 was one more indication of

the rapid spread of LCV's in States west of the Mississippi. Because of

the desirability of a uniform policy toward all States that allowed LCV

operations, the FHWA did not immediately address the question of

Kansas' grandfather rights. However, on April 8, 1991, just over a

month after the KDOT's regulations authorizing SVC permits became

effective, the FHWA asked for an opinion by the Kansas Attorney General

(AG). The KDOT requested the opinion on April 26, 1991, and the AG

replied on May 30, 1991, that the State's grandfather rights were broad

enough to encompass SVC operations on I-70. Since the issue here is

``regular or periodic'' operations, it would serve no purpose to

discuss the AG's grandfather claims. The KDOT quickly issued an annual

SVC permit to Yellow Freight and operations began the following day.

The State's regulatory process was not completed until March 4,

1991, and the Kansas AG required more than a month to respond to the

KDOT's request for an opinion. The FHWA had no part in these delays. It

is true, however, that the KDOT made a good faith effort to satisfy the

FHWA's legal concerns and postponed the start of SVC operations on I-70

until the deadline included in the draft ISTEA legislation had nearly

passed. We do not wish to penalize Kansas simply for cooperating with

the FHWA.

Yellow Freight asserted that ``(a)s originally drafted, the Federal

LCV freeze date would have been April 1, 1991. Senator Dole's office

intervened to move that federal freeze date to June 1, 1991,

specifically to accommodate the Goodland triples route.''

In its comments in response to the SNPRM, the ATA said:

ATA was deeply involved in the Congressional deliberations

leading to the LCV freeze. It is our understanding that the language

in the Conference report was designed to preclude establishing LCV

operations based on single trip permits for infrequent truck

movements. Therefore one or two movements of heavy machinery by a

specialized carrier would not create ``grandfathered rights.''

ATA understands that for Kansas, a single trip permit would

normally be issued for ``occasional use'' purposes. It is clear that

the intent of the (SVC) permit was for multiple trip purposes and

not occasional ``one or two trips.'' The permit had been applied for

long before the freeze language was proposed. It was only a matter

of timing that so few trips were made.

There is nothing in the ISTEA legislative history that clarifies

the meaning of ``regular or periodic basis,'' but the ATA's

interpretation is plausible, especially in view of the Caltrans'

response to the SNPRM. The Caltrans stated that it

[I]ssued two permits, at the request of the California

Legislature, allowing two vehicle combinations with three 26.5-foot

trailers to operate from October 27 to November 5, 1971. These

vehicle combinations had an overall length of 94.25 feet with gross

vehicle weights of 76,800 pounds and 90,000 pounds. The 1971 permits

were issued to gather information on truck tractor and triple

trailer combination operations. The information was used to consider

whether triple combination operations should be allowed in

California.

In 1983, the Caltrans issued permits for operational tests of (1) a

111,000-pound ``Triple'' (28-foot trailers) between October 24-28; (2)

a 106,850-pound ``Rocky Mountain Double'' (48-foot semitrailer, 28-foot

pup) between November 7-10; and (3) a 122,650-pound ``Turnpike Double''

(two 48-foot trailers) between November 14-18. The Caltrans argued that

California retains the right to issue an extralegal permit for

good cause to operate a divisible combination of vehicles exceeding

the maximum size or weight limits with specific guidance provided by

the California Legislature.

The brief tests performed by California one and two decades ago,

which never resulted in the authorization of LCV's, are certainly among

the minimal operations that the requirement for ``regular or periodic''

use was intended to exclude. The FHWA has therefore declined to list

these vehicles in appendix C.

Kansas and Yellow Freight, on the other hand, clearly expected

LCV's to use I-70 routinely and for years to come, and made elaborate

preparations on that basis. In addition, the KDOT's efforts to

cooperate with the FHWA delayed the issuance of the first permits,

which would otherwise have been available in March 1991. On balance,

the FHWA believes that the SVC operations on I-70 satisfy the statutory

standard. The Goodland route has therefore been restored to appendix C.

The CRASH commented on the accuracy of the lists of routes

available to the different vehicle combinations. Appendix C now

reflects the proper route listings. Due to the SVC and Turnpike

operations, the truck tractor and three trailing unit combination does

have more route mileage available to it than do two trailing unit

combinations. The new route lists show that I-70 between the Colorado

State Line and Goodland is available only to SVC's with three trailing

units and not to LCV combinations with two trailing units.

LEGAL CITATIONS:

One change has been made at the request of the State. KSA-8-1915

has been moved from the list of applicable statutes for two trailing

unit combinations to the list for three trailing unit combinations.

MASSACHUSETTS

LENGTH OF THE CARGO-CARRYING UNITS:

The CRASH commented that the cargo-carrying length listed in the

SNPRM for the ``Turnpike Double--LCV'' was incorrectly listed as 114

feet. This figure is the overall length previously allowed for this

configuration. Applying the convention for determining cargo-carrying

length used throughout this rulemaking, 10 feet will be deducted for

the tractor. The cargo-carrying length now shown in appendix C for the

truck tractor and two trailing unit combination is 104 feet.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: The CRASH pointed out two vehicle requirements missing

from the SNPRM, one concerning emergency equipment and the other

concerning passing requirements. Both provisions have been added to

appendix C.

PERMIT: The CRASH commented that the SNPRM did not include the

requirement to have insurance coverage of certain amounts. Appendix C

has been changed to reflect the requirement to have insurance coverage,

however, the amounts are not included in appendix C. The amount of

insurance coverage is not an item that is directly related to the size

and weight of LCV's.

MICHIGAN

COMBINATION:

The State commented that the vehicle in question is a truck

tractor-semitrailer-trailer where one of the cargo units exceeds 28.5

feet in length. Michigan statutes allow an overall length for the two

trailers, as measured from the front of the first trailer to the rear

of the second trailer, of 58 feet, including the load. This vehicle

configuration was excluded from the original listing of LCV's in the

NPRM. The exclusion was based on a definition of excepted combination

used in the NPRM (57 FR 9901, March 20, 1992) as follows:

Truck tractor-semitrailer-semitrailer and truck tractor-

semitrailer-trailer configurations with a maximum length of cargo-

carrying units of 62 feet or less are subject to the provisions of

23 CFR part 658. These are the twin 28-foot units authorized by the

STAA, and the 28-foot B-train doubles authorized as specialized

equipment by the FHWA.

Michigan contends that the vehicle was correctly excepted in the

NPRM since the Michigan vehicle clearly fell within the length

parameters of non-LCV vehicles.

The exclusion by the FHWA in the NPRM was erroneous. The vehicle

was included in the SNPRM and is now in the final rule since it can

consist of a truck tractor and two trailing units and can carry more

than 80,000 pounds on the Interstate System.

The State also commented that the ``Rocky Mountain Double--LCV''

description in the SNPRM was inappropriate for the vehicle in operation

in Michigan. The revised combination categories now used in appendix C

has alleviated this concern.

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS WEIGHT:

The State commented that the table listing vehicle combinations

subject to the ISTEA, illustrating a Michigan vehicle listed under

``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' with a 128,000-pound maximum gross weight,

was inappropriate. Michigan, the State argued, is an axle weight State

with a grandfather provision and maximum gross weights are determined

based on axle and axle group weight limits. Therefore, it would be

inappropriate to specify a single maximum gross weight for Michigan.

The FHWA does not agree. The table and text have been revised to show a

maximum allowable gross weight of 154,000 pounds. The 154,000-pound

figure was determined from the maximum axle weight limits for an 11-

axle vehicle (the maximum number of axles allowed under State law) with

optimum axle spacing and with a combined cargo-carrying box length of

58 feet. Vehicles with fewer axles or less than optimum axle spacing

will have a lower allowable gross weight based on State requirements.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: Michigan commented that certain statements included in the

SNPRM did not apply to the vehicle in question. These statements

concerned (1) the overall length of a truck and trailer or semitrailer

combination and (2) operational hours for certain vehicles hauling

hazardous materials. The appropriate sentences have been removed from

the text.

ACCESS: The State commented that ``Access'' should read ``all

designated State highways.'' This change has been made.

ROUTES:

In response to a comment by the State, the ``ROUTES'' description

has been changed to indicate that all Interstate and designated State

highways are open to these vehicles.

MISSISSIPPI

COMBINATION:

The State commented that a CMV with two cargo units, subject to the

freeze requirements of section 4006 of the ISTEA, originally submitted

by the State and included in the NPRM, was inadvertently left out of

the SNPRM. The vehicle, which is subject to the freeze because the

trailing units may each be up to 30 feet long, has been included in

appendix C with the operational information listed as supplied by the

State.

MISSOURI

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH claimed that an error in available routes had been made

in the SNPRM, and that the SNPRM did not include several items that

pertain to permitted loads. The CRASH not only questioned the

availability of several Interstate routes in the Kansas City

metropolitan area, but also the availability of I-44 in southwest

Missouri. It stated that ``the only National Network route from which

LCV's can enter Missouri is I-70 in Kansas.'' Several NN routes in

Kansas and Oklahoma come up to the Missouri State Line. LCV's are

allowed to operate on I-44 in Oklahoma, thus making I-44 available to

enter Missouri. In Kansas, LCV's have access to the northeastern end of

the Kansas Turnpike, over any route within a 20-mile radius. Within

that 20-mile radius in Kansas, several Interstate and other highways,

which prior to passage of the ISTEA were designated as Federal-aid

Primary highways, come up to the Missouri State Line. LCV's may use any

of these routes to reach terminals in Missouri which fall within a 20-

mile band of the Kansas State Line.

The CRASH indicated that the State indivisible load requirement had

been omitted from the SNPRM. In addition, the CRASH contends that

several operational requirements were also omitted, including those

involving time-of-day restrictions, weather requirements, oversize load

signs, speed, tractor unit power, and the need for insurance. The State

responded that routine overdimension and overweight special permit

issuance in Missouri is made in accordance with State Rule 7 CSR 10-

2.010 (based on Section 304.200, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1992),

which provides for a uniform administration of large and heavy loads.

Although the rule (7 CSR 10-2.010) as originally promulgated by the

Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission disallows routing

reducible loads (except for farm products) under permit, in July 1986

the State's chief engineer, exercising other authority within the rule,

authorized travel for multi-unit LCV's carrying reducible loads. To

quote Rule 7 CSR 10-2.010:

[T]he chief engineer of the State Department of Highways and

Transportation, for good cause shown and when the public safety or

public interest so justifies, shall issue special permits for

vehicles or equipment exceeding the limitations on width, length,

height, and weight herein specified * * *.

It was determined to be in the public interest to allow LCV

operation to relieve economic stress and give motor carriers the

incentive to retain terminals in Missouri. Missouri would then be more

competitive with adjacent western States which allow LCV operations.

The operation of LCV's has gone without reported incident, according to

annual documented safety assessments made by the Missouri Highway and

Transportation Department, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the

Kansas City Public Works Department, and the Kansas City Police

Department.

In response to other items listed, the State made the point that

Missouri Revised Statute Sec. 304.200 (1992) gives the chief engineer

significant latitude in allowing the operation of LCV's, and that

several items including speed and weather restrictions are conditions

of the permit issued for the operation of LCV's.

MONTANA

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

PERMIT: The CRASH said that a provision requiring carriers

operating vehicles subject to the ISTEA freeze to have ``public

liability and property damage insurance for the protection of the

traveling public as a whole'' was omitted from appendix C. Appendix C

has been changed to reflect the requirement to have insurance coverage;

however, the amounts are not included. The amount of insurance coverage

is not an item that is directly related to the size and weight of

LCV's.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH said that Chapter 672 of the Montana Session Laws of

1991, which amended Montana Code Annotated (MCA) section 61-10-124,

increased the length of Turnpike Doubles from 95 to 100 feet in length

effective January 1, 1992, and, therefore, the cargo-carrying length in

appendix C should be based on the shorter length. This is incorrect.

Before the change, section 61-10-124 read as follows:

A term permit may be issued for any combination of vehicles that

exceeds 95 feet in length but does not exceed 100 feet in length, *

* *.

After the 1992 change, it read as follows, with the additional word

underlined.

A term permit may be issued for any combination of vehicles that

exceeds 95 feet in length but does not exceed 100 feet in

combination length, * * *.

The amendment clarified but did not substantially change the law;

term permits could be issued for ``Turnpike Doubles'' not more than 100

feet long on June 1, 1991.

NEVADA

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: The CRASH said that the Nevada Department of

Transportation Rules and Regulations in Sections 484.400, 484.405(4),

484.425, 484.430, 408.100-4, and 408.100-6(a), primarily dealing with

emergency and safety equipment, should be added to the Nevada

provisions in appendix C. We concur, and this has been done.

OTHER COMMENTS:

While appendix C has been changed to reflect the requirement to

have insurance coverage, the amounts are not included in appendix C.

The amount of insurance coverage is not an item that is directly

related to the size and weight of LCV's.

NEW MEXICO

LENGTH OF THE CARGO-CARRYING UNITS:

The cargo-carrying length restriction does not apply to two

trailing unit combinations. The length of each trailing unit is limited

to 28.5 feet. This describes a two trailing unit vehicle whose

operation is guaranteed by the STAA regardless of inter-unit spacing.

As long as each trailing unit is 28.5 feet long or less, cargo-carrying

length is not restricted. This combination is listed as an LCV because

it can exceed the 80,000-pound threshold established in the

congressional definition. New Mexico has a grandfathered gross weight

limit of 86,400 pounds.

NEW YORK

COMBINATION:

The State submitted an additional vehicle for inclusion in appendix

C. It is an STAA Double (twin 28.5-foot units) hauling up to 100,000

pounds under a State DOT permit. As this combination may operate on NN

highways in New York, appendix C has been amended to account for its

operation. This combination was inadvertently omitted by the State DOT

in its previous LCV submissions and docket comments.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: The CRASH commented that several items were omitted from

the ``VEHICLE'' discussion in the SNPRM, including the need to carry

emergency equipment, mud flaps, safety chains, and a tractor

certification identification number. All of these items are now

included in appendix C.

The discussion under DRIVER, VEHICLE, and PERMIT has been revised

to note the fact that the New York State Thruway Authority, in addition

to its responsibility for the tolled sections of Interstate routes 87,

87/287, 90, 95, and 190 (the original Thruway mainline between New York

City and Pennsylvania along with the Berkshire, New England, and

Niagara sections), now also has jurisdiction over the full length of I-

84, and that portion of I-287 between Thruway exit 8 and I-95. These

latter two sections remain toll-free, and the operating rules that

apply are the same as those in effect on all other highways in the

State that are under the jurisdiction of the New York State DOT.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH also sought to include the insurance requirements and the

amounts. While appendix C has been changed to reflect the requirement

to have insurance coverage, the amounts are not included in appendix C.

The amount of insurance coverage is not an item that is directly

related to the size and weight of LCV's.

In addition to the added combination discussed earlier, the State

submitted a second vehicle for inclusion in appendix C. It is a

combination which uses twin 28.5-foot units to carry nondivisible

loads. This vehicle has not been included as nondivisible loads moving

under permit are not subject to the freeze.

OKLAHOMA

LENGTH OF THE CARGO-CARRYING UNITS:

The cargo-carrying unit length for the two trailing unit

combination has been listed in this final rule at 110 feet. This length

was determined after further review of docket comments submitted by the

CRASH, actual operation documentation submitted by various carriers,

and the appropriate State statutes and regulations. The composite of

the information available leads the FHWA to conclude that on or before

June 1, 1991, the longest legally allowed multi-unit combination

vehicle in regular or periodic use in the State consisted of a truck

tractor-semitrailer-trailer, wherein each of the trailing units was 53

feet long. Combining twin 53-foot units with a 4-foot drawbar results

in the 110-foot cargo-carrying length. In the NPRM the cargo-carrying

length listed for both the ``Rocky Mountain'' and ``Turnpike'' Doubles

was 123 feet. In the SNPRM, 123 feet was again listed for the

``Turnpike'' Double. The 123-foot distance was the result of combining

a 4-foot drawbar with twin 59-foot 6-inch units.

For purposes of establishing a cargo-carrying length subject to the

freeze provisions of the ISTEA, the State incorrectly interpreted

relevant provisions of the STAA of 1982. It appears the State reasoned

that since the STAA required (1) that all States allow truck tractor-

semitrailer-trailer ``Doubles'' combinations, and (2) that Oklahoma

must allow a 59-foot 6-inch semitrailer to meet the grandfather

provisions of the STAA (53 FR 2599, Jan. 29, 1988), it follows that

Oklahoma must therefore allow twin 59-foot 6-inch units to operate as

part of a multi-unit combination vehicle.

While the STAA does require all States to allow ``Doubles,'' the

only applicable length requirement is that each State must allow at

least 28.5-foot trailing units. The allowance of any longer unit is at

a State's discretion within the parameters established by this final

rule. The grandfathered semitrailer length applies only for truck

tractor-semitrailer combinations. The STAA requires that each State

continue to allow trailers or semitrailers of such dimensions as those

that were in actual and lawful use in the State on December 1, 1982.

The January 1988 rulemaking referred to earlier established that length

as 59 feet 6 inches for Oklahoma.

For purposes of establishing a cargo-carrying length subject to the

freeze provisions of the ISTEA, a determination must be made as to the

unit lengths comprising combination vehicles authorized by State

statute or regulation and in actual operation on a regular or periodic

basis on or before June 1, 1991. Re-examination of all submitted

material and docket comments resulted in the 110-foot length.

OREGON

LENGTH OF THE CARGO-CARRYING UNITS:

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) commented that

overall length requirements for three trailing unit combinations have a

significant impact on public safety and must be retained. The ODOT also

said that the length of tractors in combination with three trailing

units is not a uniform 10 feet long but can range from 9 to 14 feet.

The freeze does not affect the authority of the ODOT to enforce an

overall length limit on triple-trailer combinations. However, it does

limit the overall length of the cargo-carrying units to what was

authorized and in use on or before June 1, 1991. Although the comment

does not specifically indicate that 9-foot-long tractors were in use

with ``Triples'' on or before June 1, 1991, we assume that was the

intent. Therefore, appendix C has been changed to correct the cargo-

carrying length of three trailing unit combinations from 95 to 96 feet.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: The CRASH commented that ORS 818.150(5) provides that any

towed vehicles in a combination must be equipped with safety chains or

cables to prevent the towbar from dropping to the ground in the event

the coupling fails. The chains or cables must have sufficient strength

to control the towed vehicle in the event the coupling device fails and

must be attached with no more slack than necessary to permit proper

turning. However, this requirement does not apply to a fifth-wheel

coupling if the upper and lower halves of the fifth wheel must be

manually released before they can be separated. Appendix C has been

amended accordingly.

ROUTES:

The ODOT indicated that there is no direct relationship between

approved routes for three trailing unit combinations and the NN

highways. The connection is that the freeze applies only on NN

highways. Consequently, truck tractor and three trailing unit

combinations may not operate with more than 96 feet of cargo-carrying

length on routes shown in appendix C. The State is free to regulate the

use of triple-trailer combinations as it sees fit on other highways.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The CRASH also indicated that officials who issue permits may

require the applicant to furnish public liability and property damage

insurance and establish that the permit vehicle will stay on the right

side of the centerline at all times. We do not regard these conditions

to be the type which must be published in appendix C since the State

has discretion whether or not to apply them.

The ODOT asked for a definition of terms and vehicles used in FHWA

rulemakings but did not cite any specific items that should be defined.

We are unaware of any items that should be defined or that could be

defined without affording interested persons the opportunity to comment

on the proposed definitions.

SOUTH DAKOTA

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: The CRASH said that provisions relating to public

liability insurance, the amount of offtracking allowed and the entering

of the dimensions used to calculate the offtracking on the permit form

should be included in appendix C. We concur, and appendix C has been

modified accordingly.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The State said that the maximum weight limit for ``Rocky Mountain

Doubles'' is not ``129K'' as shown on the table at 58 FR 11465-11466 of

the SNPRM but is the ``Uncapped Federal Bridge Formula.'' For LCV's the

maximum allowable weight is capped at what was allowed and in actual

operation on June 1, 1991. Based on the information submitted by the

State, a ``Turnpike Double,'' which must also comply with the Federal

Bridge formula, is limited to a maximum of 129,000 pounds. The

recategorization of the vehicles subject to the LCV freeze has adopted

the 129,000-pound value for the ``Turnpike Double'' as the maximum for

a truck tractor and two trailing units.

The State showed the length of the road tractor-trailer-trailer

combination as 80 feet. However, this is the overall length. When the

length determination in the SNPRM is used, the cargo-carrying length is

the overall length minus 10 feet for the length of the tractor.

Therefore, the cargo-carrying length of this combination is shown in

appendix C as 70 feet.

The State asked for certain additions and deletions to appendix C.

The recategorization of the vehicles subject to the LCV freeze

accounted for most of the changes suggested by the State. The

descriptions for South Dakota, which now appear in appendix C, take

into account the comments made by the State.

UTAH

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS:

VEHICLE: The CRASH said that Utah Regulations for Legal and

Permitted Vehicles, sections 400.2(8), (12), and (14) pertaining to

sway of multiple-trailer vehicles, following distance, and insurance

requirements, respectively, should be reflected in appendix C. We

concur, and appendix C has been amended accordingly.

ROUTES:

The State clarified the basis for delineating vehicles allowed to

operate on divided or nondivided highways from overall length to length

of cargo-carrying units. This reformatting did not change the lengths

allowed, but simply re-stated the lengths to match the language of the

ISTEA.

LEGAL CITATIONS:

The State also corrected the legal citation for truck tractor and

two trailing unit combinations and indicated that those for ``Triples''

should be the same. These changes have been made.

WASHINGTON

COMBINATION:

The State indicated that the listing in the SNPRM for ``Dump truck

with pup trailers'' should be changed to ``Truck and trailer.'' We

agree, and this change has been made in appendix C.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The State indicated that the listing in the SNPRM of ``truck

tractor with dromedary box-semitrailer-trailer'' should be changed to

read ``truck tractor carrying a freight compartment no longer than

eight feet-semitrailer-semitrailer or full trailer.'' As indicated

previously, we have decided for the time being not to list dromedary

equipment separately. This vehicle is therefore covered by the listing

for the truck tractor and two trailing unit LCV which also has a cargo-

carrying length of 68 feet.

The State also commented that the length of the cargo-carrying

units for ``Rocky Mountain Doubles'' should indicate that the 68-foot

length includes the load. We disagree. The ISTEA limited the length of

cargo-carrying units, not loads. If the State wants to prohibit, or

allow, cargo overhangs over that length, it is free to do so since it

retains all the authority it possessed prior to the ISTEA to regulate

cargo overhangs.

WYOMING

Many of the comments made by the WTA and the State DOT involved

allowable lengths and weights for what previously had been

differentiated as ``Rocky Mountain'' and ``Turnpike'' Doubles. The

recategorization into truck tractor and two trailing units now used in

appendix C, has accommodated many of these comments.

COMBINATION:

On or before June 1, 1991, Wyoming only allowed combination

vehicles consisting of not more than three single vehicles. This

precluded the operation of triple-trailer combinations which consist of

four single vehicles--a truck tractor, a semitrailer, and two trailers.

A provision of the ISTEA, in effect, gave the State until the next

general election day following enactment (November 3, 1992) to decide

whether to allow ``Triples.'' A Statewide referendum to allow their use

was defeated in the November 3, 1992, election and, as a result, the

ISTEA bars the use of ``Triples'' in Wyoming.

LENGTH OF THE CARGO-CARRYING UNITS:

Provisions relating to the length of a semitrailer in a truck

tractor-semitrailer combination will not be added to appendix C since

this vehicle is not subject to the ISTEA freeze. The State DOT argued

that its 60-foot semitrailer length limit would apply to automobile and

boat transporters with no overall length limit. This is not consistent

with the Federal requirement that States must allow standard automobile

and boat transporters to have a minimum overall length of 65 feet (75

feet if stinger-steered), with no specific limit on the length of the

semitrailer. However, application of the State rule does not conflict

with the Federal requirement since, as a practical matter, it only

applies to vehicles longer than 65 or 75 feet. Such longer combinations

would be subject to the ISTEA freeze. As a result, appendix C has been

changed to list the overall length of auto and boat transporters, since

cargo is typically carried on a headrack the same length as the

tractor, in addition to the cargo on the trailer.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The WTA said that a truck-trailer combination falls under the

definition of ``any other combination of vehicles'' in Wyoming law and,

therefore, is limited to a total overall length of 85 feet with no

single unit exceeding 60 feet. While the combination is limited to 85

feet, the 60-foot limit applies only to semitrailers in a truck

tractor-semitrailer combination. The showing of 78 feet for the length

of the cargo-carrying units was based on allowing 7 feet for cab

length.

The WTA said that it could not understand why the cargo-carrying

length of saddlemount combinations was shown in the SNPRM as 75 feet.

Under Wyoming law it would be considered as ``any other combination''

subject to an overall length of 85 feet. We agree. Since the tractor in

a saddlemount combination is part of the cargo being transported, we

have changed the length of the cargo-carrying units for this

combination to 85 feet.

TOW TRUCK OPERATIONS

The nature of the service provided by wreckers or tow trucks is

such that these vehicles need to have immediate access to all roads in

a State to remove disabled or abandoned, as well as accident-damaged,

vehicles. They are, to that extent, emergency vehicles. There is no

evidence that Congress intended to include these operations under the

freeze restrictions. Therefore, the FHWA proposed in the SNPRM to

exclude emergency towing operations from any of the freeze provisions

proposed in appendix C. Comments on this issue were received from the

California and Washington DOT's and the California Highway Patrol.

Both of the California agencies recommended that proposed 23 CFR

658.23(b)(5), which would allow tow trucks and vehicles in tow to

operate on the NN without regard to the freeze on length, be amended to

require a State permit to operate overlength. This is unnecessary since

23 CFR 658.23(b)(5) merely means that they are not limited to whatever

length was allowed and in use on June 1, 1991. Since they also are not

STAA vehicles, the State may regulate their length in any manner it

sees fit, including the requirement for a permit, if it wishes.

The Washington DOT asked if tow truck operations are restricted to

the length and weight in effect on June 1, 1991. As stated in the

SNPRM, emergency towing operations are excluded from any of the freeze

provisions in appendix C. However, the proposed provisions in paragraph

(b) of 23 CFR 658.23 only excluded tow trucks from the length

provisions of appendix C. In order to fully exclude emergency towing

operations from any of the provisions contained in new 23 CFR 658.23,

the underlined phrase in paragraph (a)(1) has been added:

(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and except

for tow trucks with vehicles in tow, * * *.

Also, in paragraph (b)(5) ``with'' has been substituted for

``and.''

Pole Trailers

In the SNPRM the FHWA proposed to list, as the authorized length

for expandable trailers used for carrying poles, logs or pipe, etc.

(pole trailers), the lengths allowed by State law, even if these limits

refer to the cargo rather than the vehicle itself.

Only five sets of comments were received which specifically

addressed the issue of pole trailers. The South Dakota DOT supported

the position that the State-allowed length of the cargo should be

considered the cargo-carrying length of the unit. The State added that

the FHWA should establish a national cargo overhang policy similar to

that in effect for automobile and boat transporters; that is, 3 feet in

front and 4 feet to the rear of the vehicle. The Pennsylvania DOT

commented that its special length limitation (70 feet) for any

combination transporting nondivisible articles has been in place for

over 20 years, and that it should be listed as Pennsylvania's length

for these vehicles. The California Highway Patrol provided that State's

applicable length limits for pole or log trailers. Taking a different

tack, both the ATA and the WTA stated in their comments that pole

trailers should not be considered or regulated as LCV's. The ATA stated

that the ``FHWA is incorrect in believing that establishing length

limits for pole trailers is consistent with the purpose of section 4006

of ISTEA.'' In addition to echoing the ATA's comment, the WTA went on

to state that the FHWA's proposal with regard to regulating pole

trailers as an LCV, ``does not recognize that timber harvesters do not

cut logs in the same lengths all the time. Utility poles transported by

telephone and power companies are not the same length and neither are

the joints of pipe used in oil well drilling, pipe line construction

and water and sewer line repair and construction.''

The FHWA has re-examined this issue. In the SNPRM, the FHWA

admitted that the statutory language concerning the freeze is not

readily applicable to such vehicles. The discussion of pole trailers

and the inclusion of these vehicles in the SNPRM was based on an

interpretation that the two cross-members on which the cargo rests

constitute individual cargo-carrying units for purposes of section 4006

of the ISTEA. That argument is difficult to maintain. In fact, the

hitch, the load, and rear dolly combine to create a de facto

semitrailer. The FHWA has decided not to include these vehicles in

appendix C, as truck tractor-semitrailers are not subject to the

requirements of the freeze. Two separate pole trailers pulled by a

tractor, however, must comply with section 4006.

Further Restrictions on ISTEA Vehicles

The ISTEA provides that States may further restrict, or even

prohibit, the operation of LCV's or CMV's with two or more cargo-

carrying units after June 1, 1991. Such restrictions, however, must be

consistent with sections 411, 412, and 416(a) of the STAA. This means

that States may not prohibit twin trailer combinations with trailers

not over 28 feet long (28.5 feet if grandfathered) from operating on

the NN or reasonable access routes. States may not restrict the width

of vehicles on the NN or reasonable access routes to less than 102

inches or the metric equivalent, 102.36 inches.

A State must notify the Secretary within 30 days after the

imposition of further restrictions or prohibitions on the operation of

LCV's or CMV's with two or more cargo-carrying units. The FHWA does not

have approval authority over any additional restrictions a State may

impose, but is required to publish such restrictions in the Federal

Register. The FHWA may require further information or clarification

before publishing the restrictions in the Federal Register.

No additional comments were received on this issue in response to

the SNPRM. The proposed regulatory language in the SNPRM directly

reflected congressional intent as expressed in the ISTEA. That language

has been adopted unchanged by this final rule in Sec. 658.23(e).

Minor Adjustments to Listed Information

Sections 1023 and 4006 of the ISTEA allow States to make minor

adjustments of a temporary and emergency nature which will relax route

designations and vehicle operating restrictions in effect on June 1,

1991. They also direct the Secretary to issue regulations establishing

criteria for the States to follow in making such adjustments.

Minor adjustments must be both temporary and caused by an

emergency. According to the Conference Report on the ISTEA (H.R. Conf.

Rep. No. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 314 (1991)), such adjustments are

intended to be temporary and limited, e.g., a bridge failure that would

require the rerouting of ISTEA vehicles to highways where they would

otherwise be prohibited. Since it is impossible to foresee all types of

emergencies that might necessitate a minor adjustment, and it is not

the intent of the FHWA to establish a burdensome reporting requirement,

the proposed regulation would require a State to report the details of

an adjustment only if the duration was expected to exceed 30 days.

Emergency adjustments with a duration of 30 days or less would not be

reported to the FHWA.

The NPRM proposed to cap the duration of minor adjustments at 1

year. Adjustments lasting more than 1 year would not be considered to

be of a temporary or emergency nature. Minor adjustments for the same

emergency would not be permitted to be broken into periods of less than

1 year to extend the emergency for a period longer than that.

Similarly, an emergency would not be permitted to be broken into 30-day

or shorter periods to avoid reporting. The FHWA re-examined the issue

in light of the comments received to the NPRM docket. Subsequently, the

SNPRM removed the NPRM's 1-year maximum duration for a minor

adjustment, but clearly spelled out that the FHWA must approve any

minor adjustments which exceed 30 days. The SNPRM proposal also clearly

spelled out that rejection of a State's request would cause the

immediate reimposition of freeze restrictions, with failure to do so

putting a State at risk of a funding penalty pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 141.

Two sets of comments to the SNPRM addressed the issue, those of the

CRASH and those of the Advocates For Highway and Auto Safety

(Advocates). Both organizations objected to the removal of the original

1-year time limit. They feared that under the SNPRM States would be

allowed to detour LCV's onto highways less capable of safely

accommodating these vehicles for unspecified, indefinite lengths of

time. The Advocates also objected to the SNPRM proposal because

It fails to provide any criteria for the states to use in

choosing alternate routes. The agency (FHWA) simply asserts that it

will exercise its discretion to review and approve or disapprove any

state's request for an LCV routing adjustment.

It argues that the FHWA is reserving for itself a power to make

decisions on an important issue without publicly available guidelines

which have been developed through a rulemaking process.

The criteria represented in the final rule by Sec. 658.23(c) are

necessarily general and rely on the review-and-approval nature of the

Federal-State relationship.

It is not practical to develop specific criteria to evaluate

requests which might originate for any number of reasons. However, to

allay the concerns of both the CRASH and Advocates--that minor

adjustments, insofar as alternate routes are concerned, will result in

LCV's temporarily operating on highways perceived to be less safe--this

final rule includes additional guidance in selecting alternate routes.

Section 658.23(c) now provides that in selecting alternate routes,

States should, to the extent possible, select routes with geometric and

pavement design features equivalent to those of the highway segment

which is temporarily unavailable. In addition, each request involving

an alternate route should include a discussion of what steps the State

will take to mitigate any operational and/or safety problems that may

develop.

The operating philosophy of the FHWA with respect to State issues

has always been that of individual office autonomy within broad

national guidelines. The Division Office of Motor Carriers within each

State is in the best position to evaluate requests involving truck

issues in the State. However, in order to assure that a degree of

uniformity is applied to such requests, the Regional Office of Motor

Carriers must be consulted before a decision is made on a State's

request. On issues which involve alternate routes for LCV's, the final

rule directs the Division Office of Motor Carriers to coordinate with

the Division Administrator before consulting with the Regional Office.

Definition of Nondivisible Loads

Background

The definition of a nondivisible vehicle or load included in the

NPRM was criticized by many commenters, and the following revised

definition was therefore proposed in the SNPRM:

Nondivisible vehicle or load. As used in this part,

``nondivisible'' means any vehicle or load exceeding applicable

length or weight limits which cannot readily be separated into

smaller vehicles or loads that comply with such limits without:

(1) Compromising the intended use of the vehicle,

(2) Destroying the value of the load, or

(3) Using expert knowledge or specially designed tools. The

intended use of a vehicle would be compromised if separating it into

smaller units would make it unable to perform the function for which

it was designed. The value of a load would be destroyed if

separating it into smaller units would make the load unusable for

its intended purpose. Expert knowledge means familiarity with

procedures required to dismantle and reassemble a load which are

beyond the job requirements typically associated with positions in

the motor carrier industry. Specially designed tools means equipment

designed and manufactured only for use with the load in question. A

State may treat a sealed containerized load moving in international

commerce as a nondivisible load.

Many of those who responded to the SNPRM discussed nondivisible

loads, but a number of comments suggested that the scope of the

definition requires clarification. The definition adopted here (and the

others already codified in 23 CFR 658.5) apply, like the ISTEA freeze

itself, to the same highways and vehicle characteristics as the

underlying Federal law. The following paragraphs explain that principle

in more detail.

Weight: As a condition of receiving Federal-aid funds, States are

required to enforce Federal weight limits (23 U.S.C. 127) on the

Interstate System and on routes providing reasonable access to and from

the Interstate. The penalty for failure to do so is the withholding of

a State's National Highway System (NHS) apportionment. A State may set

any weight limit it wishes on other highways, though many have

voluntarily adopted Interstate limits for all roads. States are

therefore required to use the FHWA's definition only when considering

whether to issue a nondivisible load permit allowing an overweight

vehicle to operate on the Interstate System and roads providing

reasonable access to and from the Interstate.

Length: Federal laws relating to vehicle length (49 U.S.C. app.

2311 and 23 CFR 658.13, 658.23) apply to the NN of highways--see

appendix A to part 658--and routes providing reasonable access to and

from the NN (49 U.S.C. app. 2312 and 23 CFR 658.19). The Interstate is

part of the larger NN, and reasonable access rights extend the reach of

Federal size laws beyond the NN itself. In contrast to Federal weight

law, these provisions and the implementing regulations preempt

conflicting State laws or regulations.

As a practical matter, the FHWA definition of a nondivisible load

will rarely be applied to cargo length because it does not cover

straight trucks or single-trailer combinations. It covers only loads on

vehicles (1) operating on the NN, and routes providing reasonable

access to and from the NN, (2) which have two or more cargo-carrying

units, and (3) when the overall length from the front of the first to

the rear of the last cargo-carrying unit exceeds the longest such

length in actual legal operation for a specific configuration on or

before June 1, 1991. There are very few single loads that rest

simultaneously on the bed of a straight truck and on a trailer, or on

two or more trailers. And even in those cases, the definition would not

apply unless the total cargo box length were greater than that allowed

by the State in 1991. The definition will apply more often to loads,

like entire buildings, that are moved on a series of dollies, each of

which is a single cargo-carrying unit. There has been virtually no

controversy about these loads, and we expect little in the future.

Width: Federal width law (49 U.S.C. app. 2316 and 23 CFR 658.15),

like the length requirements, applies on the NN and reasonable access

routes, and it preempts conflicting State laws or regulations. However,

the definition of a nondivisible load adopted by this rule does not

apply to an overwidth vehicle because Federal law provides that States

may issue permits to motor vehicles more than 102 inches wide without

regard to divisibility or nondivisibility (49 U.S.C. app. 2316(c)).

Height: The FHWA has no authority to regulate vehicle height; there

is no Federal law on this subject.

Comments to the Docket

Containers: The SNPRM proposed to allow States to treat containers

moving in international commerce as nondivisible loads. Responses were

about equally divided. Three State transportation departments favored

the proposal, while two States, the ATA, and the Advocates opposed it.

Missouri said that ``(u)niformity among States to issue overweight

permits for containerized loads in excess of 80,000 pounds gross weight

would be a giant accomplishment.''

Connecticut suggested that States be required to treat sealed

containerized loads moving in international commerce as nondivisible,

subject to maximum dimensions and weights it did not specify. Florida

went even further, pointing out that

no justification is presented in the SNPRM for not affording

identical containerized loads in domestic commerce a benefit being

afforded such containers in international commerce. Therefore, it is

proposed that the final rule make no reference to either

international or domestic commerce and the statement in question

should be revised to read: A State may treat a sealed containerized

load as a nondivisible load.

On the other hand, the Washington State Patrol strongly disagreed

with the proposal.

If that were allowed, the industry could load any container to

whatever weight, claim its (sic) moving in international commerce

and obtain an overweight permit, without regard to axle, gross

weight or bridge formula requirements * * *.

During a recent ``Container Weight'' study, conducted by the

Washington State Patrol, it was shown that of the 3,100 vehicles

transporting containers, which exceeded the legal weight limits, all

but one could be transported legally by using vehicles with the

proper number of axles and axle spacings.

The Washington State Patrol concluded that ``(t)he proposal * * *

appears to be in conflict with the `Intermodal Safe Container

Transportation Act of 1992' * * *.''

Similarly, the Washington DOT argued that ``(r)ather than stating a

policy that the FHWA is ambivalent about whether the states allow

containerized cargo to be treated as non-divisible, it would seem

better to encourage a national policy that they are not. This would

alleviate competition on this point among ports to make their services

more amenable to haulers and shippers.'' South Dakota contended that

``(j)ust because the container is `sealed' or is `moving in

international commerce' should not preclude a loaded container from

meeting the same size and weight requirements which exists for a load

which is loaded in a container, such as a truck box, not `sealed' and

not `moving in international commerce.'''

The ATA recommended that the proposal to allow containers to be

treated as nondivisible loads be dropped and that the issue be

addressed in the rulemaking to implement the Intermodal Safe Container

Transportation Act.

The Advocates argued that the FHWA had ``openly contravened

Congressional intent'' expressed in section 4006 of the ISTEA ``by

explicitly endorsing the prospective regular issuance of such permits

for any `sealed containerized cargo in international commerce.'''

FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that there is a serious question

whether the proposal to allow States to treat containers in

international commerce as nondivisible loads is consistent with the

Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act of 1992 (Safe Container

Act) (Pub. L. 102-548, 106 Stat. 3646, partly codified at 49 U.S.C.

508).

Briefly, the Safe Container Act requires the party tendering a

loaded intermodal container or trailer with a cargo weight in excess of

10,000 pounds to provide the initial carrier a written certification of

the cargo weight and a reasonable description of the contents. Each

carrier in the intermodal chain is required to transmit the

certification to the next carrier. Motor carriers are prohibited from

hauling loaded intermodal containers or trailers subject to the Safe

Container Act without receiving a certification. It is also illegal to

coerce a motor carrier to haul such a container or trailer (1) without

a certification or (2) when the certified weight would make the

combination vehicle exceed applicable State weight limits. There are

two statutory options if State enforcement personnel discover an

overweight tractor-chassis-intermodal container (or tractor-intermodal

semitrailer) combination which is on the highway because the motor

carrier relied on a false or erroneous certified weight. First, the

State is authorized to assess the overweight fine against the initial

tenderer and to impound the container or trailer until that party or

the beneficial owner of the cargo has paid the fine. Second, if the

State fines the motor carrier instead of trying to collect from the

shipper or beneficial owner, the motor carrier has a lien on the

contents of the container or trailer equal to the amount of the fine

imposed and any additional costs incurred in the incident until it

receives payment from the tenderer or beneficial owner. If payment is

not made within a reasonable time, the carrier may sell the contents to

satisfy the lien. The FHWA's proposed regulations to implement the Safe

Container Act were published on July 14, 1993, at 58 FR 37895.

The Safe Container Act imposes administrative requirements and

costs on tens of thousands of intermodal shippers around the world, and

on the international transportation system, in part to reduce the

number of overweight containers operating on the Nation's highways. The

Safe Container Act is designed to give U.S. motor carriers enough

information about the weight and cargo characteristics of intermodal

containers and trailers to enable them to decide whether a particular

vehicle can be transported without violating State weight limits. If

States were allowed to continue routinely to issue nondivisible load

permits for overweight containers, some of the essential purposes of

the Safe Container Act would appear to be compromised. There would be

little incentive for shippers to load intermodal containers or trailers

with U.S. weight limits in mind, little if any reduction in the number

of overweight vehicles (even though a permit makes them legal), and

little reduction in pavement and bridge damage. Many of the expected

benefits of the Safe Container Act would be lost, and the regulatory

burdens it entails for shippers and carriers would be pointless, if the

FHWA adopted the rule on containers proposed in the SNPRM. The FHWA has

therefore decided not to promulgate a final rule dealing with

containers, but to treat this subject in a separate notice of proposed

rulemaking where the issue can be examined more explicitly and in

greater detail. In the meantime, the FHWA's previous policy will remain

in effect: the States may continue to issue nondivisible load permits

to containers moving in international commerce.

Expert Knowledge or Specially Designed Tools: Many of the comments

focused on the third test for nondivisibility proposed in the SNPRM. If

``expert knowledge or specially designed tools'' were required to

dismantle a load, it would be considered nondivisible. Most of the

comments were critical.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation found the test to be

(1) Vague,

(2) Impractical to measure or verify,

(3) Subject to manipulation by industry,

(4) Subject to subjective factors other than the vehicle or load

itself, such as driver knowledge of cargo,

(5) Subject to varying interpretation, and

(6) In reality, a restatement of the initial economic criterion

that was deleted from this latest rulemaking * * * .

The members of the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association

(SCRA) often move loads that would qualify as nondivisible by any

definition. The SCRA noted that the definition proposed by the SNPRM

explained expert knowledge as familiarity with procedures required to

dismantle and reassemble a load which are ``beyond the job requirements

typically associated with positions in the motor carrier industry.''

The Association argued that because highly specialized skills are

typically associated with positions in its segment of the motor carrier

industry, the definition would make it impossible for special carriers

and riggers to obtain nondivisible load permits.

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities also

commented that ``expert knowledge'' means very different things in

different parts of the industry. It concluded that ``(s)ome further

work needs to be done on this definition.''

The Caltrans commented that, ``(w)hatever definition is finally

promulgated, Caltrans is totally opposed to the provisions concerning

expert knowledge and specially designed tools.''

FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that a test based on ``expert

knowledge or specially designed tools'' is too complicated and

ambiguous to be effective. It has therefore been replaced with a test

based on the time required to divide a load. This general approach was

suggested by the Oregon DOT in response to the NPRM. The full

definition adopted by this rule is as follows:

Nondivisible load or vehicle.

(1) As used in this part, ``nondivisible'' means any load or

vehicle exceeding applicable length or weight limits which, if

separated into smaller loads or vehicles, would:

(i) Compromise the intended use of the vehicle, i.e., make it

unable to perform the function for which it was intended;

(ii) Destroy the value of the load or vehicle, i.e., make it

unusable for its intended purpose; or

(iii) Require more than 8 workhours to dismantle using appropriate

equipment. The applicant for a nondivisible load permit has the burden

of proof as to the number of workhours required to dismantle the load.

(2) A State may treat emergency response vehicles and casks

designed and used for the transport of spent nuclear materials as

nondivisible vehicles or loads.

The first two tests proposed in the SNPRM, and adopted here as

paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii), have elicited little comment and no

controversy. These standards are appropriate but very stringent. The

FHWA believes there are loads that could be divided without literally

destroying their value, but only after unreasonable delay and expense

to the shipper and motor carrier; the States should be allowed to issue

nondivisible load permits in those cases. As the Pennsylvania DOT

recognized, this is essentially an ``economic criterion.'' Our earlier

proposals to codify this idea would have allowed nondivisible load

permits if dismantling the load imposed ``significant additional costs

on the shipper or motor carrier'' (NPRM) or required ``expert knowledge

or specially designed tools'' (SNPRM). The final rule uses 8 workhours,

i.e., a full working day, as a proxy for nondivisibility. The number of

workhours required by the rule is the same no matter how many people

are involved; for example, if one person working 8 hours, 2 people

working 4 hours each, or 4 people working 2 hours apiece, could not

dismantle the load, it would be nondivisible. Most loads that require

more than one full workday to dismantle, using appropriate equipment,

probably were not designed to be taken apart after leaving the factory.

We believe Congress intended to allow the use of nondivisible load

permits for cargoes which are theoretically divisible, but so tightly

integrated that they cannot be dismantled without excessive cost and

delay. On the other hand, the definition sets a standard high enough to

keep easily divided overweight machinery and equipment off the highway.

The definition adopted today as paragraph (1)(iii) is more

objective than that proposed in the NPRM and less confusing than the

amended version included in the SNPRM. It remains complex, however, and

disagreements between enforcement officers, motor carriers, and

shippers are likely. The rule does not specify how State officials are

to determine the length of time required to break down a given load.

Manufacturers may sometimes provide the necessary information. The

motor carrier itself may have reliable data if it has previously

dismantled such cargoes. The rule does not require a carrier or shipper

to demonstrate that a given load cannot be broken down in less than 8

workhours, but it would not prohibit a State from requiring such a

demonstration either. Enforcement officials may be able to work out

other reliable methods in cooperation with motor carriers. Paragraph

(1)(iii) requires that ``appropriate equipment'' be used in an effort

to dismantle a cargo. The number of workers involved and the type of

equipment used will depend on the load to be moved. A State is not

required to grant a permit in any case, and it would certainly be

reasonable to deny a permit to a carrier or shipper which makes a

perfunctory or deliberately inadequate effort to dismantle a load

within 8 workhours.

The FHWA intends to allow the States some latitude in implementing

the definition, unless indications of nonenforcement or abuse appear.

Overweight and Overwidth Vehicles: In many cases, nondivisible load

permits are likely to be requested for loads which are both overweight

and overwidth. The South Dakota DOT favored the definition of a

nondivisible load adopted by the Western Association of State Highway

Officials (WASHTO), which includes the following:

Portions of a load can be detached and reloaded on the same

hauling unit provided that the separate pieces are necessary to the

operation of the machine or equipment which is being hauled, if the

arrangement does not exceed permittable limits.

The State explained how this definition would work in case of an

overweight, overwidth load.

For example, suppose that a ten foot wide crawler tractor with a

fourteen foot wide dozer is to be moved. This load can be moved two

ways, overweight and fourteen feet wide with the dozer and ten feet

wide without the dozer. Clearly the safest way to move the load

would be legal weight and ten feet wide but separating the dozer

from the crawler tractor destroys the unit for its intended use and

it requires expert knowledge to take the dozer off.

FHWA Response: The State has misread the FHWA's proposed

definition. Although a bulldozer might be temporarily ``unusable for

its intended purpose'' without a blade, that phrase merely clarifies

the term ``destroy the value of the load.'' Removing the blade

certainly would not destroy the value of the bulldozer. The ``expert

knowledge'' test has been eliminated, but it is unclear whether a blade

would require more than 8 workhours to remove.

The flaw in the WASHTO definition is that it allows the separate

pieces of an allegedly nondivisible load to be reloaded onto the same

vehicle. That defeats the purpose of such a provision, which is to hold

down vehicle weights in order to protect the public investment in roads

and bridges. The WASHTO definition simply allows a divisible load

permit to masquerade as a nondivisible load permit. That is

unacceptable.

Overwidth Vehicles: The WTA described a related, but different

situation:

FHWA seems to assume that all overlength (and over-width) loads

are also overweight. Much of the equipment used in agriculture is

oversize, but not overweight. Allowing the removal of a portion of

this type of machinery such as tires and allowing it to be carried

on the same trailer is clearly in the public interest, especially

when in all respects, the machinery is otherwise eligible for a

nondivisible load permit. Requiring a second vehicle to haul the

removed part(s) is not smart economics.

FHWA Response: If a piece of farm machinery is overwidth but not

overweight, the State may either issue an overwidth permit, make the

permit conditional upon the removal of tires but allow them to be

carried on the same trailer, or deny a permit. These options are

entirely within the discretion of the State. If farm machinery is

neither overwidth nor overweight, the question of divisibility would

not arise unless two or more cargo-carrying units were needed to

transport it, certainly a rare occurrence.

California Policy: The California Highway Patrol also argued that

``there are incidents involving the transportation of some nondivisible

loads, when more than one unit is loaded, (and) can be transported

safely. To qualify, loads would have to be oversize, rather than

overweight in nature. California permit policy allows the

transportation of multiple nondivisible pieces together, provided

sufficient supporting justification is given.'' The Caltrans asked for

a definition that allows this kind of flexibility.

FHWA Response: States may allow several nondivisible overwidth

loads on the same vehicle, as long as the normal weight limits are

observed. That appears to be what California authorizes. As mentioned

above, Federal law gives the States great discretion in issuing permits

for overwidth loads. There would also be no conflict with Federal

regulations if a State allowed more than one overlength nondivisible

load to be carried on a single trailer vehicle--assuming the vehicle

was not overweight--because the FHWA's definition of a nondivisible

load applies only to overlength nondivisible loads carried on two or

more cargo-carrying units.

Safety: The Wyoming DOT, the WTA, and Black Hills Trucking, Inc.,

referred to Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc., v. Leno Menghini et al.,

No. C79-057B, an unreported 1979 Wyoming Federal district court

decision, in support of the proposition that safety should be

considered in any definition of nondivisible loads. Rocky Mountain

Prestress manufactured concrete panels that were to be mounted, two at

a time, on A-frame trailers and transported from Denver to Casper for

use in construction projects. Wyoming law allowed special permits for

overweight ``indivisible loads,'' but the Highway Department rejected

plaintiff's application on the ground that two panels were a divisible

load. Plaintiff sued the Chief Engineer of the Department, arguing

among other things that Wyoming's permit law violated the Commerce

Clause of the Constitution. The court held the law constitutional, but

found that it had been applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner

which impermissibly burdened interstate commerce. The court explained

that:

Our conclusion is buttressed by the admission of the Defendants

that heavy equipment which is being carried by trailer qualifies as

an indivisible load even though the parts thereof may be easily

dismantled. Such an approach to granting overweight permits

signifies that the State Highway Department has previously, as they

must in this case, considered circumstances other than the mere

physical divisibility of the goods in transit.

* * * * *

We would also observe that forestry goods, baled hay and sugar

beets are statutory exceptions to the mandated weight limits. The

special interest group exceptions in the Wyoming statutes

discriminate against the Plaintiff and others similarly situated who

may be equally deserving of exceptions from the weight limitation in

view of the safety and economic factors involved. * * *

* * * [T]he State's desire to protect its highways has been

severely diluted by the discriminatory granting of overweight

permits to special interest groups, as well as by the routine

issuance of such permits based on an indivisible load regulatory

provision that we believe was arbitrarily and capriciously applied

to the Plaintiff.

FHWA Response: The court concluded that ``the `A' frame is the

safest * * * mode of transportation for loading and shipping panels,''

but its evidence on that point was meager. The issue of safe

transportation of concrete panels was discussed at some length in the

SNPRM (see 58 FR 11455-11457). As we noted there, a single panel,

mounted horizontally, would improve the vehicle's braking capability

and reduce its susceptibility to side winds. Two such panels obviously

constitute a divisible load, and a ``safety'' rationale for doubling

the weight of a divisible load is not persuasive.

Black Hills Trucking now contends that one panel cannot be carried

horizontally because it ``is not constructed to stand up to forces

coming through its sides,'' or vertically ``because it is not heavy

enough in proportion to the `sail' area exposed to side winds which

destabilize the load.'' The apparent fragility of these concrete panels

does not make two of them any less divisible. Furthermore, the Great

Plains experience winds high enough to overturn tractor trailer

combinations and double-stack container trains. The interests of safety

are better served by halting trucking operations under those conditions

than by doubling the weight of the cargo in an effort to anchor the

vehicle.

The Rocky Mountain Prestress decision is not binding on the FHWA.

To the extent this rule requires Wyoming to adopt and enforce a new

definition for purposes of issuing nondivisible load overweight permits

for the Interstate System, it is no longer binding on the State either.

The 1979 decision was based upon the State's arbitrary and capricious

administration of its own permit law, in particular its failure to

apply that law consistently to all motor carriers and commodities. At

the time, there was no Federal law on nondivisible loads. Congress

enacted nondivisible load provisions for vehicle weight in 1982 and for

vehicle length in 1991. Proposed regulations to implement that

authority have been subjected to extensive comment and discussion in

this rulemaking. Wyoming, like the other States, will be required to

adopt the new definition for Interstate operations. That definition

will result in greatly increased nationwide uniformity in the treatment

of nondivisible loads. Wyoming will have no more administrative

discretion than any other State. A judicial challenge to the FHWA's

definition of a nondivisible load would therefore confront a legal and

factual situation completely different from that which existed in 1979.

Emergency Vehicles: Section 1023(e)(1) of the ISTEA prohibited the

FHWA from penalizing States that allow emergency vehicles to use the

Interstate at weights in excess of Federal axle and Bridge Formula

limits. The exemption was in effect for 2 years after the date of

enactment of the ISTEA and expired on December 18, 1993. Section

1023(e) also required a study of State laws and permit practices to

determine whether statutory changes were needed to accommodate

emergency vehicles.

To carry out the study, the FHWA requested comments on a variety of

questions (57 FR 46941, October 13, 1992). The information submitted

indicated that most fire trucks exceed the Federal single- and/or

tandem-axle weight limits (20,000 and 34,000 pounds, respectively).

These vehicles are rarely short enough to violate the Bridge Formula,

however, and almost all of them have gross weights under 80,000 pounds.

Technological developments in the manufacturing sector combined with

the equipment preferences of fire departments are driving up the size

and, especially, the weight of fire trucks. On the other hand, tandem

and tridem axles are not favored because they reduce the

maneuverability these vehicles need to reach burning buildings. Some

States exempt fire equipment from normal weight limits, and others

issue blanket overweight permits. The Caltrans reached a compromise

with fire officials that will require the latter to observe specific

axle limits for various types of vehicles and to make purchasing

decisions accordingly.

The U.S. DOT's report was transmitted to Congress on September 7,

1993. It recommended that Congress take no further action because the

matter could be resolved by an FHWA policy statement. On November 9,

1993, the Federal Highway Administrator informed the FHWA's regional

offices, and through them the States, that ``the FHWA will not withhold

Federal-aid funds from States which issue nondivisible load permits to

emergency vehicles equipped for their intended use. We will not require

that the vehicles have a full crew or be operating under emergency

conditions. States may set whatever permit terms, conditions, and fees

they consider appropriate.'' The Federal Highway Administrator added

that this policy ``is compatible with the Agency's draft definition''

published on February 25, 1993, in the SNPRM and that if it ``in any

way conflicts with the definition ultimately adopted through the

rulemaking process, appropriate action will be taken to amend or

rescind the policy.''

The Federal Highway Administrator's decision was based upon

conclusions set forth in his November 9, 1993, letter:

Some States may have refused to issue nondivisible load permits

to emergency vehicles because much of their equipment is readily

detachable. Fire trucks often carry firefighting teams, water,

hoses, axes, respirators and other devices; advanced life support

vehicles typically carry at least two paramedics (one of whom

drives), defibrillators, oxygen tanks, stretchers, and medical

supplies. In one sense, ancillary equipment and personnel are

``divisible'' parts of the load, and removing them might lighten an

emergency vehicle enough to restore compliance with Interstate

weight limits. Doing so, however, would defeat the purpose of these

vehicles and make it impossible for them to respond effectively to

emergencies. New vehicles may even be overweight as they leave the

final stage manufacturing facility, either because the base vehicle

is particularly heavy or because ancillary equipment is supplied

with it. The equipment that could be removed from emergency vehicles

to reduce weight is essential to the services they are designed to

perform. These vehicles and loads are functionally if not physically

nondivisible, and I believe the States should have the option to

treat them as such.

In the language of the regulation we are adopting today, requiring

an emergency vehicle to unload separable pieces of equipment would

``compromise the intended use of the vehicle.'' Emergency vehicles meet

the definition of a nondivisible vehicle or load.

Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Pennsylvania DOT pointed out that the FHWA

informed the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials several years ago that the FHWA regards overweight casks used

to move spent nuclear fuel as nondivisible. This determination was not

reflected in the SNPRM. The casks used to transport spent nuclear

materials, especially nuclear fuel, are extraordinarily strong and

heavy, both to prevent a release in case the transporter vehicle was

involved in an accident and to block radiation that would penetrate

lighter materials. Some of these containment devices can make a vehicle

overweight even before the nuclear materials are loaded. These vehicles

cannot be used for any other cargo or reduced to legal weights without

frustrating their purpose. A new provision has therefore been added

which essentially states that specially designed casks used to move

spent nuclear fuel meet the definition of a nondivisible load.

Other Issues: The Pennsylvania DOT suggested that the SNPRM be

amended to acknowledge that both the President and State governors

[H]ave the executive authority to temporarily modify any vehicle

size or weight law or regulation, including the nondivisible

criteria, in order to provide for emergency relief to promote the

general welfare and public safety, without threat of Federal

sanction after the emergency.

While the FHWA would not necessarily impose sanctions if weight

enforcement suffered during emergencies that threatened public welfare,

Federal weight law simply does not authorize waivers of the Interstate

limits or regulatory definitions.

The Connecticut DOT suggested that we use the definition of a

nondivisible load to establish ``an Ultimate Limit or a guideline to be

used by manufacturing.'' Federal size and weight laws confer no

authority to regulate manufacturers.

The FHWA mentioned in the SNPRM that bulk commodities such as

liquids, grain, and cement are inherently divisible. The CRASH

suggested that the definition include ``a much more complete listing of

loads that are inherently divisible * * * .'' In view of the enormous

variety of products that move by truck, we do not believe divisible

loads could reasonably be itemized.

Grove Worldwide, a manufacturer of cranes, proposed that a load be

defined as nondivisible if dismantling it would cause a competitive

disadvantage, compromise the integrity and safety of the equipment when

disassembled, or jeopardize the warranty. The FHWA considers these

tests too far removed from the question of physical divisibility to be

appropriate.

Procedure to Review and Correct Final List

Sections 1023 and 4006 of the ISTEA provide a review and correction

procedure for the final list of ISTEA vehicles, published today as

appendix C to 23 CFR part 658. Any person or State may request that the

Secretary review the final list to determine if there is cause to

believe that it contains a mistake. The Secretary may also initiate the

review. If the Secretary believes an error exists, he or she must

commence a proceeding to determine if the list should be corrected, and

if so, make the correction. Proposed language establishing such a

procedure was included in the SNPRM. No comments were received on this

issue. Accordingly, that language has been adopted, unchanged, by this

final rule in Sec. 658.23(f).

Temporary Exemption for Public Transit Vehicles

Section 1023 of the ISTEA was amended by the Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year

(FY) 1993, Public Law 102-388, 106 Stat. 1520. Section 341 added a new

subsection (h) which reads in part as follows:

(h) Public Transit Vehicles.--

(1) Temporary Exemption.--The second sentence of section 127 of

title 23, United States Code, relating to axle weight limitations

for vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and

Defense Highways, shall not apply, in the 2-year period beginning on

the date of the enactment of this Act, to any vehicle which is

regularly and exclusively used as an intrastate public agency

transit passenger bus. The Secretary may extend such 2-year period

for an additional year.

This prevents the FHWA from sanctioning States that fail to enforce

the Interstate axle-weight limits for public transit vehicles at least

until October 6, 1994. If the Secretary exercises the authority to

extend the exemption an additional year, it would apply until October

6, 1995. The 2-year exemption was included in the ISTEA to allow States

to suspend axle weight enforcement on the Interstate System against

public transit vehicles while the Secretary conducts the study called

for in section 1023(h)(2). That study, which is currently underway, is

to determine whether or not public transit vehicles should be exempted

from the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 127, State weight laws, or if such

laws should be modified to accommodate these vehicles. The FHWA and the

Federal Transit Administration published a joint notice and request for

comments on this issue on November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60481). A report on

the results of the study, along with recommendations, will ultimately

be submitted by the Secretary to Congress.

In a comment to the SNPRM docket, the American Public Transit

Association urged that the temporary exemption language be codified

into part 658. The FHWA agrees with this comment. Accordingly, the

exemption is codified in this final rule at Sec. 658.17(k).

Temporary Exemption for Emergency Vehicles

Section 1023(e) of the ISTEA added the following exemption from 23

U.S.C. 127:

(1) Temporary Exemption.--The second sentence of section 127 of

title 23, United States Code, relating to axle weight limitations

and the bridge formula for vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower

System of Interstate and Defense Highways, shall not apply, in the

2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, to

any existing vehicle which is used for the purpose of protecting

persons and property from fires and other disasters that threaten

public safety and which is in actual operation before such date of

enactment and to any new vehicle to be used for such purpose while

such vehicle is being delivered to a fire fighting agency. The

Secretary may extend such 2-year period for an additional year.

This prevented the FHWA from sanctioning States that failed to

enforce the Interstate axle-weight and Bridge Formula limits for fire

or emergency vehicles in actual operation on or before December 18,

1991, and for such equipment being delivered from the manufacturer to a

fire department. The normal gross weight limit was not affected by the

exemption. The exemption remained in effect through December 18, 1993.

The SNPRM proposed to codify the exemption at Sec. 658.17(k).

Two comments were received on this issue. The South Dakota DOT

expressed its desire to go on record as ``not in favor of allowing a

temporary or permanent axle weight exemption or bridge formula weight

exemption for emergency vehicles.'' The State contends that ``operation

of these vehicles overweight threatens the public's safety'' and ``that

emergency vehicles should be designed to operate within legal size and

weight limits.'' The Caltrans objected to the FHWA's interpretation of

the law which indicated that the normal gross weight limit (80,000

pounds) remained in effect during the period of the exemption. They

contend that gross weight is determined by the Bridge Formula and that

our interpretation was contradictory.

The FHWA believes that Congress intended the exemption in section

1023(e)(1) to cover (1) single- and tandem-axle limits, (2) application

of the bridge formula to intermediate axles (the inner bridge limits),

and (3) application of the Bridge Formula to the overall wheelbase of

the vehicle (the outer bridge limit). However, the 80,000-pound maximum

gross weight allowed by 23 U.S.C. 127(a) is not inherently part of the

Bridge Formula. It is a separate statutory restriction, and we do not

believe Congress intended to authorize an exemption to the 80,000-pound

limit.

The 2-year exemption was included in the ISTEA to allow States to

suspend enforcement action against these vehicles while the Secretary

conducted the study called for in section 1023(e)(2). That study has

been completed, as indicated above, and the authority of the Secretary

to extend the temporary exemption an additional year will not be

exercised. The temporary exemption expired December 18, 1993. However,

the definition of a nondivisible load adopted in this final rule

specifically declares emergency vehicles to be nondivisible. States may

therefore issue overweight permits for these vehicles if they wish.

Interstate System Weight Requirements

The first sentence in 23 U.S.C. 127(a) was amended by the STAA of

1982 to require all States to allow the maximum weights permitted by

Federal law on the Interstate System. In effect, the weight limits set

forth in section 127 became minimums which the States must allow, as

well as the maximums the States could allow, on the Interstate System.

Since the STAA amendment of section 127 became effective (January 6,

1983), States have occasionally argued that the amendment applied only

to the single-axle, tandem-axle, and maximum gross weight limits, and

not to gross weights developed by the Bridge Formula. In addition, a

degree of confusion regarding applicability has lingered over the years

as a result of the regulations issued to implement the STAA (49 FR

23302, June 5, 1984). Although those regulations were published 1\1/2\

years after enactment of the STAA, the statutory action making the

weight value minimums was not highlighted nor was any regulatory

language included.

The SNPRM proposed to clarify and resolve this issue by including a

Sec. 658.17(f) as follows.

(f) States may not enforce on the Interstate System vehicle

weight limits of less than 20,000 pounds on a single axle, 34,000

pounds on a tandem axle, or the weights derived from the bridge

formula, up to a maximum of 80,000 pounds, including all enforcement

tolerances.

Comments on this proposal were received from six State Departments

of Transportation (Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and

Washington), as well as from the WASHTO's Subcommittee on Highway

Transport. All seven commenters objected to the paragraph as proposed

for fear that it would no longer allow the States to further control

axle weight using a regulation based on pounds per inch of tire width.

Each of the six States providing direct comments currently has this

type of weight control regulation in force. The ``Guide For Uniform

Laws and Regulations Governing Truck Size and Weight Among the WASHTO

States,'' prepared by the WASHTO Subcommittee on Highway Transport and

adopted by the WASHTO Policy Committee on June 26, 1993, recommends

that all 17 member States adopt a 600-pound/inch tire width weight

control.

State tire loading regulations are intended to limit the use of

single tires or wheels designed for dual tire applications. This is a

practice which results in higher pavement stress and shorter pavement

life, and greatly reduces the safety margin provided by dual tires.

Depending on the pound-per-inch limit chosen, these regulations may

also restrict the use of some ``super single'' tires. The Washington

State DOT included in its docket comments a copy of a report of

research on the effects of wide based single tires on flexible

pavements conducted by the FHWA at our Pavement Testing Facility during

1989 and 1990. Dual 11R22.5 radial tires, previously identified as one

of the most common truck tires in use today, were tested against a 425/

65R22.5 wide base single tire. Under a load rating methodology

established by the United States Tire and Rim Association, the load

ratings for the duals and the single are equivalent; however, the

footprint on the pavement is significantly different. The approximate

footprint of an 11R22.5 tire is 8.5 inches. Thus, two sets of duals

(four tires) can result in approximately 34 inches of tire being

available to transmit an axle load to the pavement. For the 425/65R22.5

wide base tire, the footprint is approximately 11 inches, which would

make approximately 22 inches available to transmit an axle load to the

pavement. The research demonstrated that the 425/65R22.5 wide based

single tire was significantly more damaging to conventional flexible

pavements than the traditional 11R22.5 dual tires.

The Federal axle weight limits on the Interstate System were

adopted to protect the tremendous Federal investment in that System.

Restrictions on the weight a tire may carry, based on its width, are

consistent with that goal and not forbidden by Federal law. It would be

anomalous to adopt axle weight limits to protect Interstate System

pavements and then prevent States from blocking the use of tires so

narrow that much of the protection was lost. In addition, a pound-per-

inch tire limit does not directly limit the weight that an axle may

carry, since additional or wider tires may be utilized. Therefore,

unless such restrictions operate so that, as a practical matter, axles

cannot be loaded to the Federal weight limits, they are not

inconsistent with 23 U.S.C. 127. We believe that laws limiting tire

weights as low as 500 pounds per inch width of tire or tread width will

allow axles to be loaded to the Federal axle weight limits without

particular difficulty.

Steering axles must be treated differently, however, since they

cannot always be equipped with wider or additional tires. The FHWA has

already recognized a different standard for steering axles by not

requiring States to allow truckers to load them to 20,000 pounds when

the manufacturer's weight rating is less than that. Therefore, States

may not impose pound-per-inch restrictions that would reduce the

allowed weight of steering axles on the Interstate System to less than

20,000 pounds or the manufacturer's weight rating, whichever is lower.

Arizona, Montana, and Oregon also suggested that proposed

Sec. 658.17(f) be amended to allow temporary weight restrictions based

on climatic conditions or emergencies.

Some northern States have for decades enforced lower axle limits

during spring thaw. When moisture in a pavement's sub-base, frozen

during the winter months, begins to melt, the load-carrying capacity of

the pavement structure is reduced until the moisture drains. The degree

of reduction is a function of the overall pavement structure thickness,

the type of underlying material, amount of moisture, and depth of frost

penetration.

Federal weight restrictions apply only to the Interstate System.

The standards to which the System has been built include pavement

designs developed with the strength to allow maximum legal weights year

round. The FHWA does not agree that there is a need to provide

regulatory flexibility for climatic conditions. The pavement design

parameters of the Interstate System preclude the need for this

authority. However, the States do retain the authority to establish

such restrictions for highways that are not part of the Interstate

System.

``Emergency'' weight restrictions requested by States generally are

not restrictions at all, but rather the lessening of restrictions to

allow heavier weights. For example, when natural disasters occur,

carriers, relief agencies, or States would often like to allow trucks

carrying relief supplies to exceed normal weight limits. Federal law

simply does not allow waivers of this kind. On the other hand, if a

flood or earthquake has seriously weakened a bridge or stretch of

pavement, it remains within the police powers of the State or

municipality to close or limit access to the facility in order to

protect the public.

Of the three exceptions to Sec. 658.17(f) sought by commenters, the

FHWA agrees that States should retain the authority to enforce the tire

loading restrictions, but does not concur in the request to provide

climatic or emergency restrictions. Accordingly, Sec. 658.17(f), as

proposed in the SNPRM, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 658.17 Weight.

* * * * *

(f) Except as provided herein, States may not enforce on the

Interstate System vehicle weight limits of less than 20,000 pounds

on a single axle, 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle, or the weights

derived from the Bridge Formula, up to a maximum of 80,000 pounds,

including all enforcement tolerances. States may not limit tire

loads to less than 500 pounds per inch of tire or tread width,

except that such limits may not be applied to tires on the steering

axle. States may not limit steering axle weights to less than 20,000

pounds or the axle rating established by the manufacturer, whichever

is lower.

Bus Length and Access

Section 4006(b)(1) of the ISTEA amended section 411(a) of the STAA

[49 U.S.C. app. 2311(a)] by inserting ``of less than 45 feet on the

length of any bus,'' after ``vehicle length limitation.''

Section 4006(b)(2) of the ISTEA amended section 412(a)(2) of the

STAA [49 U.S.C. app. 2312(a)(2)] by inserting ``motor carrier of

passengers'' after ``household goods carriers.''

The first provision has the effect of requiring States to allow

buses with a length of 45 feet or less on the NN and reasonable access

routes. The second provision requires States to allow motor carriers of

passengers to have the same access off the NN as household goods

carriers, i.e., to ``points of loading and unloading.'' In the SNPRM,

the FHWA proposed changes to the ``Length'' and ``Reasonable Access''

sections of part 658 to account for these provisions.

Comments on this proposal were received from the Caltrans and the

Department of California Highway Patrol. Both agencies recommended that

a final rule include definitions of both ``bus'' and ``motor carrier of

passengers'' to ``prevent confusion on the interpretation and

application of the regulations.'' The FHWA agrees with this comment.

The STAA defines a ``commercial motor vehicle'' in part as ``any

self-propelled * * * vehicle used on the highways in [interstate]

commerce principally to transport passengers * * * (B) if such vehicle

is designed to transport more than 10 passengers, including the driver

* * *'' (49 U.S.C. app. 2301(1)(B)). While this definition applies only

to subchapter I of chapter 32 of title 49, U.S.C., which makes grants

available to States that agree to enforce Federal, or compatible State,

safety regulations, it is an indication of congressional intent. For

purposes of administering the commercial vehicle safety program,

``bus'' was defined in 49 CFR 390.5 as ``any motor vehicle designed,

constructed, and or used for the transportation of passengers,

including taxicabs.'' The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 amended the

definition of a bus to a ``vehicle designed to transport more than 15

passengers, including the driver * * *.'' (49 U.S.C. app. 2503(1)(B)).

The intent of Congress, as expressed in the ISTEA, is to guarantee

national route availability and reasonable access for ``buses'' not

exceeding 45 feet in length. Since virtually all States already allowed

40-foot buses to operate Statewide prior to the ISTEA, the number of

passengers the vehicle is designed to carry is not an issue, simply the

establishment of a national standard length. Accordingly, this final

rule will use the most generic of the definitions already established,

that found in 49 CFR 390.5.

While the term ``motor carrier of passengers'' has not previously

been defined, this type of operation can generally be characterized as

belonging to at least one of three groups: (1) Common carriers that

offer service on regular (and sometimes on irregular) routes, (2)

contract carriers that provide charter service to groups, or (3)

private carriers that do not serve the public but use buses as part of

some other enterprise. Someone who uses a 45-foot bus for recreational

or other non-business purposes would not qualify as a motor carrier of

passengers. For this final rule ``motor carrier of passengers'' is

defined as follows:

Motor Carrier of Passengers--is a common, contract, or private

carrier using a bus to provide commercial transportation of

passengers.

The list of definitions contained in 23 CFR 658.5 has been amended

to include this definition. In addition, the provisions of Sec. 658.13

(Length) and Sec. 658.19 (Reasonable Access) have been amended to

account for these provisions.

Lengths of Trailers and Semitrailers

Fruehauf Trailer Corporation (Fruehauf) commented that the FHWA

should clarify the methods by which length is determined for trailers

which are part of a multi-unit vehicle subject to the freeze. Because

of the attention focused on the LCV length issue by the freeze,

Fruehauf contends that it is important that all States (and enforcement

agencies) have a uniform understanding of how the length of the

individual units is to be determined. Fruehauf's specific concern is

with full trailers used in LCV's which are actually made up of a

semitrailer and a converter dolly.

In a Notice of Interpretation (NOI) published on March 13, 1987, at

52 FR 7834, the FHWA addressed the issue of trailer or semitrailer

length, as part of an overall discussion of length and width exclusive

devices. The first length interpretation is relevant here.

1. The length of a semitrailer equipped with an upper coupler

(mates with a truck tractor fifth wheel) and a full trailer (with

either a permanently mounted dolly or equipped with a converter

dolly) 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. The towbar

of a full trailer is excluded from the length measurement (of that

trailer) since, technically, it carries no load, but rather it is

the means by which the trailer unit is drawn.

The length of any two or more units subject to the freeze

requirements of section 4006 is to be measured from the front of the

foremost transverse load-carrying structure of the first cargo-carrying

unit to the rear of the rearmost transverse load-carrying structure of

the last such unit. The upper coupler on a semitrailer is not to be

included in the length determination of these units.

National Network--California

This final rule will also amend appendix A to 23 CFR part 658,

National Network--Federally-Designated Routes, to reflect the inclusion

of the I-580 Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (toll) in the NN. Under the

STAA, all Interstate System routes are part of the NN unless deletion

is authorized by law. The I-580 Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was withheld

from the NN until a direct connection to I-80 from the east end of the

bridge could be completed. This condition was reflected in Note 1 to

the California listing of NN routes in appendix A. Now that this

connection has been completed, the FHWA is amending appendix A by

removing Note 1 and redesignating Note 2 as ``Note.''

This amendment will merely reflect the fact that the I-580

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is now included in the NN pursuant to the

provisions of the STAA. For this reason, and the others set forth

above, the FHWA has determined that prior notice and opportunity for

public comment on this action are unnecessary. Furthermore, due to the

technical nature of this amendment, the FHWA has determined that prior

notice and opportunity for comment are not required under the U.S.

Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, as

it is not anticipated that such action will result in receipt of useful

information.

National Network--Virginia

The ISTEA freeze applies to the operation of specified CMV's on the

Interstate and other portions of the NN. The identification of NN

routes in Virginia contained in appendix A to 23 CFR part 658 utilizes

Interstate System exit numbers to identify the beginning or end of some

NN routes. During 1992, the State converted all Interstate System exit

numbers from a consecutive number system to a milepost numbering

system. In response to this portion of the SNPRM, the State indicated

that there appeared to be a discrepancy between what was published in

the SNPRM and what the State was considering to be its NN.

The State list not only includes those highway sections designated

by the Secretary which comprise appendix A to part 658, but also

additional segments which the State has also decided to open to STAA

vehicles. Each State retains the authority to open additional mileage,

beyond what is listed in appendix A of part 658, to STAA vehicles

without the approval of the Secretary. In order to identify NN routes

in Virginia which have been federally designated, we are reissuing the

State's NN routes in appendix A, 23 CFR part 658, to reflect the new

milepost-based exit numbers.

Definition Of Maxi-Cube

Among the vehicles specifically excluded from listing in appendix

C, and therefore not subject to the restrictions described in section

4006 of the ISTEA, is the maxi-cube vehicle. ``Maxi-Cube'' is a

registered trademark of LHT Industries, which designed the vehicle, but

the maxi-cube regulations adopted in this rule apply to any vehicles

that meet their terms.

In 1987, Congress amended the STAA by adopting a definition of a

maxi-cube and authorizing the vehicle to operate on the same terms as

other STAA vehicles (49 U.S.C. app. 2311(f)(2) and 2311(c),

respectively). It soon became apparent that the definition, reproduced

below, was flawed:

(2) For purposes of this section, maxi-cube vehicle means a

truck tractor combined with a semi-trailer and a separable cargo-

carrying unit which is designed to be loaded and unloaded through

the semi-trailer, except that the entire combination shall not

exceed 65 feet in length and the separable cargo-carrying unit shall

not exceed 34 feet in length.

49 U.S.C. app. 2311(f)(2).

Although the term maxi-cube was intended to apply to a specific

combination of straight truck and trailing unit, the 1987 language

described the power unit as a ``truck tractor,'' which the STAA

elsewhere defines as ``the noncargo carrying power unit that operates

in combination with a semitrailer or trailer * * * `` (49 U.S.C. app.

2311(f)(1)).

Theoretically, therefore, the maxi-cube is a noncargo-carrying

power unit combined with a semitrailer and a separable cargo-carrying

unit which is designed to be loaded and unloaded through the semi-

trailer. Unfortunately, this vehicle is a chimera. The separable cargo-

carrying unit cannot be placed on the ``noncargo carrying'' power unit,

and if it were placed on the semitrailer, the result would seem to be a

truck tractor-chassis-intermodal container combination. Container

vehicles had long been legal, however, so the 1987 language certainly

was not directed at them. In some sense all containers and semitrailers

are designed to be loaded and unloaded ``through'' themselves, but the

description does not really fit a combination with only one cargo-

carrying unit. The fact is that the definition of the vehicle to be

authorized did not correspond to the actual vehicle.

Recognizing the problem, Congress amended the STAA again in 1990 to

make maxi-cubes ``specialized equipment'' and thus eligible for the

special regulatory treatment authorized by 49 U.S.C. app. 2311(d). The

accompanying report of the House Appropriations Committee said the

following:

The bill includes language (Sec. 327) amending section 411(d) of

the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 regarding maxi-

cube vehicles. A maxi-cube vehicle is a truck combination consisting

of a power unit capable of carrying cargo that pulls a semitrailer.

The power unit is a single or tandem axle truck that carries either

a detachable or a permanently attached cargo box or platform. The

trailing unit is a semitrailer attached to the front unit by a

specially built draw bar which gives the entire combination a single

point of articulation. The front of the rear unit is specially

designed so cargo may be loaded through the rear unit to the front

unit. The length of the trailing cargo unit can be no more than 34

feet excluding the draw bar. The distance from the front of the

cargo box on the power unit to the rear of the trailing unit can be

no more than 60 feet.

(H.R. Rep. No. 584, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. at 78-79 (1990).)

Although this is an accurate description of a maxi-cube, the flawed

definition of the same vehicle in 49 U.S.C. app. 2311(f)(2) was not

repealed. In the SNPRM, the FHWA therefore exercised its broad

discretionary authority over specialized equipment to propose a

definition of the maxi-cube that largely codified the policy guidance

of the Committee Report while omitting or modifying the erroneous parts

of the statutory definition. We believe this is consistent with the

principle that ambiguous or confusing statutes must be interpreted and

implemented in a manner that minimizes difficulties and produces the

most sensible result.

The definition of a maxi-cube proposed in the SNPRM has been

adopted in this final rule, with slight modifications for clarity. It

should be noted that the word ``semitrailer'' used in the statute and

Committee Report has been changed to ``trailer or semitrailer,'' since

some of the vehicles built as maxi-cubes in recent years are equipped

with pintle-hooks, non-load-bearing hitches used for full trailers.

Others are equipped with load-bearing fifth-wheel hitches typical of

semitrailers. This modification of the definition is well within the

FHWA's authority to promulgate rules to accommodate specialized

equipment.

The SNPRM also proposed that maxi-cube vehicles should be measured

with the adjustable-length drawbar (if so equipped) at its maximum

extension, since we assumed that was how the drawbar would be

positioned for over-the-road operations. The Pennsylvania DOT supported

this proposal in its comments to the docket.

It appears, however, that adjustable drawbars usually are not fully

extended when the vehicle is in motion. Magna Van and Coca Cola

commented that 24 inches is the normal distance between the first and

second units of their maxi-cube vehicles during over-the-road

operations, but that longer distances are used for access to driveways

and transferring freight in off-road situations. Other information

submitted to the docket indicated that 27 inches is probably the

longest distance between cargo units for highway travel. However, there

are times when a longer drawbar setting may be desirable, such as on

rough terrain to keep the cargo boxes from hitting each other; in urban

areas while making sharp turns; or while loading and unloading cargo

from the front unit while the rear unit is attached. The maximum

reported unit separation in these instances is 42 inches.

The FHWA believes Congress intended the maxi-cube length limits to

apply to vehicles in their normal operational configuration. We have

concluded that the cargo capacity of these vehicles would be needlessly

reduced if the rule required length measurements to be made with the

drawbar at maximum extension, since that position is used only to

assist in low-speed maneuvering or loading and unloading. The last

sentence of Sec. 658.13(e)(4) has therefore been modified to read:

If the maxi-cube vehicle is equipped with an adjustable drawbar,

the 60- and 65-foot distances shall be measured with a drawbar

spacing of not more than 27 inches. The drawbar may be temporarily

extended beyond that distance to maneuver or load the vehicle.

The American Movers Conference believes that the load-through

feature of the maxi-cube should be made optional. We do not agree. That

language is included both in the statutory definition in 49 U.S.C. app.

2311(f)(2) and in the Appropriations Committee report. This feature is

one of the primary reasons Congress declared maxi-cubes specialized

equipment. Removing the load-through element from the definition would

make these vehicles indistinguishable from truck-trailer combinations.

The State of Connecticut asked if the maxi-cube vehicle will be

designated as specialized equipment since it will be limited to the NN

and reasonable access routes. Maxi-cube vehicles are by statute

specialized equipment, and Federal regulations for such equipment apply

only on the NN and reasonable access routes.

This action concludes the FHWA rulemaking proceeding that was

designated with the regulation identification number 2125-AC65.

Beverage Semitrailers

A rulemaking to designate as specialized equipment the 28-foot van-

type, drop-frame beverage semitrailer when it is equipped with an upper

coupler plate that extends in front of the semitrailer, has been

underway since 1990. The last action on the subject was publication of

an NPRM on June 25, 1990, at 55 FR 25850. The final rule was being

prepared when the ISTEA was enacted. Since the rulemaking necessary to

implement the ``LCV-freeze'' would, like the beverage semitrailer rule,

amend 23 CFR part 658, the decision was made to include both in a

single document. Since they amend the same existing regulation,

combining them minimizes the number of separate changes made to an

already complex regulatory document.

The STAA, codified at 49 U.S.C. app. 2311 et seq., established

length and width standards for vehicles using the highways designated

as the NN (appendix A to 23 CFR part 658 (1993)). The STAA prohibited

any State from enforcing a length limit of less than 28 feet on a

semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer

combination on the NN (49 U.S.C. app. 2311 (a)). The STAA, under an

equipment grandfather provision, also allows the use of 28.5-foot

semitrailers and trailers in truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer

combinations if they were actually and lawfully operating on December

1, 1982, within a 65-foot overall length limit in any State. The

statute prohibited any State from denying reasonable access to points

of loading and unloading for a truck tractor pulling a single 28-foot

(28.5-foot if grandfathered) semitrailer that generally operates as

part of a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combination. In addition,

the STAA gave the Secretary authority to exclude from measurement of

trailer length and width, devices necessary for the safe and efficient

operation of CMV's, provided length exclusive devices did not have, by

design or use, the capability to carry cargo (49 U.S.C. app. 2311(h),

2316(b)).

Questions involving permissible vehicle length and length exclusive

devices are critical to a new design fo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.