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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-13774

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** June 13, 1994

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-13774. Public record. Not legal advice.