|
|---|
|
Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Highway Administration Byline: Rodney E. Slater Date: 2 February 1995 Subject: American Government  • Trucking
|
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6587-6589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. 95-5]
Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for comments and establishment of docket.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice requests public comment on an FHWA Comprehensive
Truck Size and Weight Study (CTS&WS) through an open docket. In
addition, the notice articulates the FHWA's goals with regard to
studying the many issues related to truck size and weight (TS&W)
policy. Public comments are solicited at this time on the study plan
described below and responses are sought to a set of policy questions
listed below. FHWA working papers developed for Phase I of the study
will be placed in the docket for review and comment by February 15,
1995.
DATES: This docket will remain open until the study is completed.
However, in order for comments to be considered during the critical
early stages of the study, they should be received no later than April
3, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 95-5,
Federal Highway Administration, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief
Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Interested
parties are requested to identify themselves for inclusion on a mailing
list for notification of any public meeting(s) that may be held in
connection with this study and availability of interim products by
providing their names and mailing addresses to the above docket. All
public meetings will also be announced in the Federal Register.
All comments received will be available for examination at the
above address between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except legal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt
of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Philip Blow, Office of Policy
Development, at (202) 366-4036; Mr. Thomas Klimek, Office of Motor
Carrier Information Management and Analysis, at (202) 366-2212, or Mr.
Charles Medalen, Office of 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.,
[[Page 6588]]
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This study is being conducted partly in response to a legislative
proposal in the 103rd Congress, H.R. 4496, that would: (1) Freeze the
weights allowed by State law or permit regulation on the non-Interstate
portion of the National Highway System (NHS), and (2) freeze the length
of new trailers at 53 feet. This bill, or similar legislation, could
have a significant impact on the public and private sectors and on the
safety and efficiency of the total transport system.
The current TS&W regulations were based on concerns for national
uniformity and good highway system stewardship, including matching
vehicle weights and dimensions with the existing public infrastructure
and with mechanisms for cost recovery. At times, some States have
adopted new pavement and bridge design standards to better match the
weights and dimensions of the vehicles being allowed to operate on
their highways. Highway engineers are concerned about premature
degradation of that infrastructure and the consequent strain on public
resources. As technology and shipper demand have resulted in larger and
heavier trucks, concerns for highway safety (adequate brakes and
vehicle handling and stability) and loss of rail service (due to loss
of freight traffic to larger trucks) have become increasingly
important, especially with regard to longer combination vehicles (LCV).
LCVs are multi-cargo unit truck combinations that weigh more than
80,000 pounds. Typical LCVs are Rocky Mountain doubles (combinations
with one trailer 40 feet or longer and another 30 feet or shorter),
turnpike doubles (combinations with two 40-foot or longer trailers), or
triples (combinations with all three trailers 30 feet or shorter in
length).
A shift of some TS&W regulatory responsibilities from the States to
the Federal Government occurred at the start of the Interstate
construction era in the 1950s, and since then, the distribution of this
shared responsibility has shifted back and forth. Now as the Interstate
construction era draws to a close, the transport community is again
reassessing the Federal role in the context of future highway
transportation needs.
The ultimate goal of a comprehensive TS&W study effort is to
estimate the net effects of various regulatory options on a transport
system evolving to serve a modern global economy. New vehicles,
electronic technology, and distribution systems create new capabilities
and opportunities. The effects of changing logistics costs, production
strategies, and shipping patterns must be evaluated from the
perspectives of carriers, managers of infrastructure, shippers,
consumers, and the traveling public. Further, the safety and
environmental impacts of these regulatory policies must be fully
considered.
Thus, TS&W policy touches upon a variety of public concerns such as
safety, infrastructure design and wear, carrier and shipper
productivity, States' rights and national uniformity, environment,
energy use, intermodal competition, and cost recovery. In addition,
these concerns exist at the local, State, regional, national, and
international scales. The CTS&WS will summarize a wide array of
information on the many related aspects of TS&W policy.
Study Plan
In order to address the issues related to possible changes in
Federal TS&W provisions, the following study plan has been developed.
Phase I, TS&W Synthesis, will assess past policy studies and research
findings. The major purpose of this phase is to describe what is known
about the technical relationships between TS&W policy controls and
their related issues. TS&W studies completed within the last 15 years,
as well as more recent research not covered in these studies, are being
synthesized. The history of State and Federal TS&W regulation is also
being reviewed. In addition, State and Federal TS&W regulations are
being summarized, and knowledge and research gaps on TS&W issues are
being identified and prioritized.
The available material is being synthesized under the subject
areas: vehicle stability and control, truck accident data, pavement and
bridge wear, highway geometry, traffic operations, truck operating
costs, shipper logistics costs, truck travel, mode share, enforcement,
environment, energy conservation, permits and pricing mechanisms.
Working Papers will be available to the public by February 15, 1995.
Phase I will be completed in early 1995.
Phase II, a Preliminary Option Analysis, will evaluate on a limited
basis specific policy options using existing databases. This analysis
will be preliminary because new data for a comprehensive analysis of
TS&W issues, such as commodity flow information, is not expected to be
made available by the Bureau of the Census until late 1995. Therefore,
Phase II policy options will include appropriate caveats regarding the
limitations of earlier studies. The analysis will be as comprehensive
as possible, at a minimum including the impacts of changes in Federal
TS&W provisions on safety, infrastructure and economic productivity.
This phase will be completed during the summer of 1995.
Phase III, an Extended Impact Analysis, will be able to use the
data and new tools that become available in 1995 and 1996 to prepare
in-depth analyses of the Phase II policy options. It will incorporate
results from a parallel cost allocation study, which the FHWA is
undertaking to determine whether the various highway users, including
heavy vehicles, are paying their fair share into the Highway Trust
Fund. Specific policy options will be analyzed using improved
information on freight flows and truck use. Phase III will address the
full range of costs and benefits estimated to derive from these
options. This last phase of the study will be completed by the end of
1996.
Policy Questions and Comments
In addition to comments on the study plan described above,
responses to the following questions are solicited from any parties
interested in TS&W regulations and issues. The following key policy
questions will be considered during the course of the three-phase
study:
Federal Interests and Role
1. What are the Federal interests in TS&W regulation? What are the
State and local government interests? How can conflicts among Federal,
State, and local interests be accommodated?
2. Should there be a Federal role in areas such as standards,
investment decisions, user fee collection, operational controls, and
enforcement? What should that role be?
3. To what extent is national uniformity needed? For which type of
motor carrier operations is national uniformity in TS&W regulation
desirable? In terms of type and area of motor carrier operations, in
which cases would regional uniformity be more appropriate? For which
type of highways is national uniformity desirable? In which cases would
regional uniformity be appropriate?
Weight Limits
4. Are changes in Federal weight limits desirable? If so, how
should the present Federal vehicle weight limits be changed? (These
limits include the single and tandem-axle weight limits, the 80,000-
pound gross vehicle weight
[[Page 6589]]
limit, and the Federal bridge formula. The Federal bridge formula is:
W=500{[LN/(n-1)]+12N+36}
where: W = the maximum weight in pounds that can be carried on a group
of two or more axles to the nearest 500 pounds. L = the spacing in feet
between the outer axles of any two or more axles. N = the number of
axles being considered.
Why are the changes needed? Which shippers or producers would
benefit from these changes, and to what extent do they benefit? How
would the public benefit from these changes?
5. Should there be a specific Federal weight limit for tridem
axles, as there are for single and tandem axles? (The allowable load on
a tridem is now determined by Bridge Formula B and varies from 42,000,
if the axles are spread just over 8 feet, to 43,500 pounds, if the
spread is 10 feet.)
6. Is there a need for Federal regulation of tire loads and
pressures or other tire controls for the purpose of protecting highway
pavements? How should they be specified?
7. If Federal vehicle weight limits were increased, should
additional requirements be placed on the heavier vehicles and their
operation? For which vehicles should such requirements be considered?
Why are these requirements needed?
Size Limits
8. Should the present Federal vehicle size (length and width)
limits be changed? If so, how should they be changed? Why are these
changes needed? Which shippers or producers would benefit from these
changes, and to what extent would they benefit? How would the public
benefit from these changes?
9. If Federal vehicle size limits were increased, should additional
requirements be placed on the larger vehicles and their operations? For
which vehicles should such requirements be considered? Why are these
requirements needed?
10. Presently, there are no Federal regulations governing truck
height. Is there a need for a Federal vehicle height limit? If so, why
is it needed?
Performance Standards
11. Could performance standards, such as ability to maintain a
minimum speed, be used as a part of a new Federal TS&W policy? How
would such standards achieve results at least equivalent to current
size and weight limits and vehicle requirements? How could these
standards be applied and enforced?
Grandfather Rights
12. Should State authority to claim grandfather rights under
Federal TS&W provisions (including overweight permit authority) be left
intact, frozen, or phased out? Why?
Permits
13. How does the extent of motor carrier operations under
overweight permits compare to that for operations that do not require
permits? What portion of the nondivisible load permits are issued
routinely; that is, without an engineering review? Nonroutinely, with
an engineering review? What portion of overweight permits are issued
for divisible loads?
14. How do operations under the various types of permits vary by
type of trucking operations and from one region of the country to
another?
15. Should there be a Federal role in the permitting of overweight
vehicles carrying divisible loads? What role? Why?
National Objectives
16. Highway Safety: Is there a Federal role in utilizing TS&W
provisions to improve highway safety? What are appropriate vehicle
performance standards for improving highway safety? What equipment
specifications are needed for which vehicle combinations? What driver
requirements (minimum age, training, or experience) are needed? Under
what highway, traffic, and weather conditions should the operation of
larger or heavier vehicles be restricted? Is a regional role or State
role appropriate?
17. Productivity Enhancement and International Trade: What
potential changes in Federal TS&W provisions could be used to
facilitate interstate commerce? International trade? What types of
vehicles are used in North American trade? What are the significant
international freight movements in terms of commodity and origins and
destination? How can the movement of International Standards
Organization containers be facilitated? Are there changes in TS&W
standards that would better facilitate North American trade and what
are the expected benefits and costs?
18. Intermodalism: What Federal TS&W provisions could be used to
facilitate the intermodal movement of freight where this is efficient?
How do TS&W limits relate to the needs of other modes, especially rail
and maritime?
19. Environment: Which potential changes in Federal TS&W provisions
are consistent or inconsistent with local and State air quality
improvement strategies? What effect would increased or decreased TS&W
limits have on traffic noise and vibration?
20. Energy Conservation: Which potential changes to Federal TS&W
provisions could be used to help conserve energy?
Carrier/Shipper Standards Setting
21. If you could, how would you change truck size and weight limits
and related requirements or set performance standards to optimize your
trucking or logistics operations? What are the bases for the limits and
requirements or performance standards? How would the changes affect
highway pavements and bridges and the national objectives mentioned
above? In your response, please: (1) Describe your operations including
commodities carried, equipment used, area of operation, amount of
traffic, lengths of haul, and arrangements with your shippers and other
carriers; and (2) evaluate the benefits that you and the public will
realize from your proposed changes.
Special TS&W Provisions
22. Should there be separate TS&W provisions for special
commodities or equipment such as hazardous materials, agricultural and
forest products, other natural resources, intermodal containers and
trailers, water and oil well drilling rigs, military vehicles, and
automobile and boat transporters? Why? What benefits would be realized
from the special provisions?
Exemptions from TS&W Standards
23. Should any vehicles that use federally-supported highways be
exempt from Federal TS&W regulation (for example, military vehicles)?
Why? What benefits would be realized from the exemptions?
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 U.S.C. 301, 302, 305; Pub. L. 102-
548, 106 Stat. 3646.
Issued On: January 26, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-2533 Filed 02-01-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P