7/30/2019 00103

1/32

CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS FOR TRUCK

SIZE AND WEIGHT LIMITS: IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS AND

ISSUES FOR ENFORCEMENT

Mary A. Field, Ph.D.

Principal Research Scientist

Battelle Memorial Institute901 D St., SW, Suite 9259

Washington, D.C. 20024

Phone (202) 366-1243FAX (202) 366-7696

E-mail:fieldm@battelle.org

Paper No. 01-2269Status: 5,932 words in text and 1,000 words for two figures and two tables.

Submitted for presentation at the

80th

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting

Washington, D.C.

January 7-11, 2001

Version: November 2000

7/30/2019 00103

2/32

Mary A. Field

ABSTRACT

Historically, truck size and weight limits have been established based on the structural

capacity of pavement, bridges, and roadway geometry (1). The concept of performance-based

standards (PBS), in the context of regulating truck weight limits, may be applied to three areas:

infrastructure, traffic operations, and safety. The use of a certification as documentation that a

vehicle complies with a PBS has been suggested as an option for enforcement of PBS.

Enforcement is essential to encourage voluntary compliance with laws or regulations

governing vehicle weight and operation. The traditional method of enforcement for vehicle

weight is the use of static, portable or platform scales to determine the axle or gross weight of a

vehicle. Any proposal to use a certification as documentation of compliance with a PBS for

truck size and weight limits must be examined closely for enforceability.

This paper examines Marylands use of a certification for enforcement of a lift-axle

weight regulation from an enforcement perspective, and discusses the process used to develop

the regulations. Enforcement of the lift-axle weight limit is based on the air pressure gauge

setting, not the weighing of the axle with a scale. The certification is important because it

documents the air pressure gauge setting required to be carried by the lift-axle on a loaded four-

axle dump truck at 31,780 kilograms(70,000 pounds). This paper represents the first external

review into the issues that were identified with use of the certification, and the enforcement

experience since implementation.

Key words: Performance-Based, Truck Size and Weight, Enforcement

7/30/2019 00103

3/32

Mary A. Field 1

INTRODUCTION

Currently truck size and weight limits in the U.S. are governed by a multi-layered system

of Federal, State and local laws, regulations, and permits that vary from State to State and

highway system. Enforcement is based on a physical weighing of the truck with scales, and

comparing the axle weight and gross vehicle weight (GVW) to what is allowed in law or

regulation. Determination of an overweight violation may result from one or more of the

following conditions: GVW exceeds the registered weight, exceeding the axle or gross weight

limit.

Generally, weight limits are specified in law and exceptions are clarified in regulations

when necessary. In general, Federal truck weight limits govern the Interstate highway system

nationwide. Federal truck weight limits are enforced using the so-called Federal bridge

formulaaxle spacing and number of axles are used to determine the legal weight limit.

Interest in the concept of performance-based standards for regulating Federal truck size

and weight limits has evolved since the early 1980s. There are many reasons for the growing

interest in PBS at the Federal level including:

1. the experience of the Canadian provinces with implementation of a performance-

based interprovincial memorandum of understanding in the 1980s, and Australian research on

truck length and weight limits and vehicle stability and control in the 1990s;

2. two studies by the Transportation Research Board in 1990 discussing alternative

approaches proposed for regulation of truck size and weight limits (Special Report 225 and

Special Report 227);

3. increasing concern by the public and highway safety interests on the increase of truck

size and weight limits; and

7/30/2019 00103

4/32

Mary A. Field 2

4. the harmonization efforts of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS) pertaining to truck size and weight

regulation between Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Additionally, in recent years the use of the Federal bridge formula has been criticized for

being outdated and in need of reconsideration. In light of the controversy over continued

reliance on the Federal bridge formula, it has been suggested that one approach to regulating

weight limits for heavy trucks could be a performance-based system. The bridge formula issue

and the performance-based approach to truck size and weight regulation are discussed briefly in

the recent U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study.

A national workshop held in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1995 focused on how a

performance-based permit program might be implemented for truck size and weight regulation in

the U.S. Alternatives suggested included the use of a certification process. A significant point

that emerged at the Ann Arbor workshop was general agreement that performance-based

regulations would be extremely complex and difficult to implement. However, continued

investigation of the concept was encouraged (2).

The United States Regulation of Truck Size and Weight Limits

Federal truck size and weight laws and regulations evolved incrementally over time in

response to changes in truck characteristics and patterns of highway use. Truck size and weight

laws are the primary means used to control the impact of vehicle weight on bridges and

pavements, and vehicle size on traffic operations and safety. For the most part, State highways

are not designed or constructed to Interstate design standards adopted by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA). In general, the majority of State and local highway system miles were

built to accommodate automobiles and commercial vehicles in existence in the middle of the 20th

7/30/2019 00103

5/32

Mary A. Field 3

Century and prior to deregulation of the motor carrier industry. In the period between 1971 and

1980 the State and local highway system miles increased by only 2.7 percent (3).

Consequently, the influence of the highway system characteristics on heavy truck

operations varies significantly depending on the highway systemInterstate system or State and

local. Changes in laws and regulations for size (primarily length) and weight of trucks operating

on the national highway system have outpaced highway system geometric design improvements

on State highways in many States. This is a concern because heavy vehicle miles of travel are

projected to grow at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the new millennium (4). State and local

transportation administrators will be faced with a need to either retrofit the system or find

alternatives to meet the increasing highway demand generated by freight (5). The cost and time

required to retrofit the system for heavy vehicles to meet the demand would be a significant.

Realistically, it is unlikely that highway design and capacity improvements can be implemented

in the short term, and a PBS system could be explored as an alternative for increasing weight and

freeing capacity.

The August 2000 Final Report of the U.S.DOT

s Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight

Study discussed performance characteristics of vehicles in the context of traffic operations and

safety. The discussion focused around the thesis that vehicle stability and control characteristics

have an impact on operations and crash propensity of heavy vehicles (6). Some argue that

adopting PBS to improve the stability and control of heavy vehicles should reduce crashes

involving heavy trucks. However, no consensus exists on a best method or process for

implementing a PBS approach into truck size and weight regulation. The application of PBS to

truck size and weight regulation would be a new approach in the U.S.. However, other countries

have incorporated this approach into their regulation of truck size and weight limits for many

7/30/2019 00103

6/32

Mary A. Field 4

years. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have experience with implementation and use of the

PBS approach and a brief discussion is presented here.

PBS for Truck Size and Weight Regulation in Canada, Australia and New Zealand

The PBS approach to allowing higher weight limits has been in use in Canada for several

years. In the 1980s research by the Road Transport Association of Canada (RTAC) on the

performance of heavy vehicles tested various characteristics of combination vehicles for stability

and control. The RTAC study resulted in the development of recommendations for PBS for

double-trailer combination vehicles. The study led to adoption of a uniform interprovincial

cooperative agreement, or memorandum of understanding (MOU), that incorporated the RTAC

recommendations and was signed by the Canadian provinces in 1988. (7)

7/30/2019 00103

7/32

Mary A. Field 5

A recent research report from the Australian National Road Transport Commission

synthesizes a number of case studies on the use of PBS in Australia and New Zealand and

identifies relevant performance measures for inclusion in PBS guidelines from current best

practices. The report describes the concept of PBS as responding to a very different need to be

able to quantify the whole vehicle and measure performance in the context of heavy vehicle

safety, productivity, and the environment at the same time, and to factor in road and traffic

influences. The research evaluated performance measures for use in controlling the on-road

performance of heavy vehicles, identified a core group for practical use, and considered the

implications for compliance and enforcement (8).

Reform proposals to adopt PBS for regulation of truck size and weight in Australia

identify compliance and enforcement as critical to successful implementation. Various

implementation schemes are put forth depending on the particular standard being implemented.

For example, it is suggested that standards for controlling vehicle rollover could be evaluated

using a tilt table. The question is, how would this standard be enforced in the field, if it is to be

enforced. Another example given is the use of a certification process for approval of vehicle

configuration and/or weight. If enforcement is critical, the question is how can these standards

be enforced practically and realistically. Whatever the standard being proposed, a detailed and

extensive review of the compliance and enforcement process and capabilities, ease of

implementation, complexity of the PBS, acceptable level of enforcement and compliance, and

judicial understanding must be addressed up front, not in hindsight.

This paper presents a case study on the use of a certification of a lift-axle on a four-axle

dump truck for enforcement and proof of compliance. The idea to use air pressure on a lift-axle

as a control to regulate axle weight limit is unique to the Maryland dump truck. In 1995, the

7/30/2019 00103

8/32

Mary A. Field 6

State of Maryland adopted regulations to implement a 1993 Maryland law intended to phase-

out its 29,510-kilogram (65,000-pound) three-axle dump truck, and phase-in a 31,780-kilogram

(70,000-pound) four-axle dump truck. The four-axle dump truck was viewed as a bridge-

friendly vehicle and a study for the State Highway Administration (SHA) by the University of

Maryland (unpublished study) indicated a $26 million/year benefit would accrue to the State

highway system. During the development of regulations to implement the phase-out it became

apparent in discussions that many issues needed to be resolved if a certification was to be

enforceable.

This paper presents an overview of the Maryland dump service vehicle law change, the

regulatory process leading up to implementation, problems identified and resolved, and lessons

learned during its enforcement in the four years since implementation.

7/30/2019 00103

9/32

Mary A. Field 7

METHODOLOGY

A case study approach is used in this paper as a method of exploring the implications of

alternatives suggested for implementation of PBSspecifically, a certification signifying

compliance. In this instance, there are lessons to be learned from the real-world experience in

the enforcement of a certification for a weight standard. The enforcement of lift-axle weight

based on the air pressure gauge setting, and its compliance with the air pressure gauge setting

specified on a certification, provides insight into the enforcement issues or considerations that

may be present with implementation of a certification for a PBS approach to truck weight

regulation.

This case study on the implementation of the four-axle 31,780-kilogram Maryland Dump

Service vehicle regulations focuses on the use of a certification as documentation of the vehicle-

specific standard. The study draws on experience and observation from participants in the

process (including the author), internal memorandums, and supplemental information obtained

from personal interviews or contact with the Maryland State Police (MSP) Commercial Vehicle

Enforcement Division (CVED). The MSP/CVED and Maryland Transportation Authority Police

(MTAP) were directly involved in development and implementation of the regulations. The

information received from the MSP provides valuable insight into the field enforcement issues

and problem identification. Data on number of registrations of the three-axle and four-axle

dump service vehicles was obtained from the MVA.

OVERVIEW OF THE 1993 MARYLAND DUMP TRUCK LAW

The State of Maryland allows trucks which are used to haul loose material in bulk to be

registered as

dump service

vehicles.(9) The dump service registration (Class E), under

Federal grandfather rights, allows dump trucks a gross weight limit far greater than other truck

7/30/2019 00103

10/32

Mary A. Field 8

classes in Maryland. Further, the dump trucks with a Class E registration are exempted from

axle weight limits and wheelbase requirements imposed on other truck classes. Consequently,

weight violations are limited to the weight in excess of a vehicle

s registered weight.

In 1993 Maryland SHA promoted the passage of State legislation to allow a four-axle

dump service vehicle to register and carry 31,780-kilograms gross vehicle weight (GVW), a total

increase of 2,270 kilograms (5,000 pounds) over the three-axle dump service vehicle. The

additional 2,270 kilograms in GVW was conditioned on the addition of a lift-axle that would be

required to maintain a minimum weight of 5,448 kilograms (12,000 pounds). The conditions for

registration and implementation of the law were to be specified in regulations developed in

cooperation with industry. The long-term objective of the law was to replace the more damaging

three-axle 29,510-kilogram dump service truck with the four-axle dump service truck, resulting

in a benefit to the State highway system and industry.

DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS

The regulations developed for implementing the 31,780-kilogram, four-axle dump truck

registration took effect on January 1, 1995. The regulatory process for this complex law

involved several steps intended to involve representatives of many public and private entities the

stakeholders. The public agencies involved in development and review of the regulations were

the MSP, Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland SHA, Maryland Motor Vehicle

Administration (MVA), and Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The private sector

participants were selected from independent owner-operators, the Maryland Trucking

Association, and private carriers that had been active in gaining passage of the law.

Essentially, the process was a negotiated-rulemaking that promoted discussion of issues

from all perspectives and resulted in some give on all sides. The discussions provided a forum

7/30/2019 00103

11/32

Mary A. Field 9

for all to gain a better understanding of the major obstacles and identify how these obstacles

could be resolved.

Further exacerbating the process was a legislative mandate for implementation of

regulations to take effect on January 1, 1995. At the outset the committee was limited in the

scope of its regulation by a joint Industry-State Task Force Agreement that formed the

framework for implementation of the law. This Agreement was viewed negatively by agencies

essential to its successful implementation, largely because they were not included on the Task

Force when it was created by the Maryland General Assembly. In fact, only one State agency

was included on the Task Force, the SHA. The SHA initiated the idea of phasing-out the three-

axle dump truck following a consultants impact analysis.

The Maryland SHA is the State agency responsible for preserving and maintaining the

State highway system and, as such, has a vested interest in reducing the potential impact of this

dump truck on State highways and bridges. Apparently overlooked in the process was an

understanding of the critical and essential role other agencies must play to assure successful

implementation. This error in judgement made the process of gaining consensus and agreement

difficult and contentious at times. The persistence of the committee and individual members to

move forward contributed to timely implementation on August 1, 1995 and full enforcement on

January 1, 1996. Figure 1 portrays the time line for the legislation to take effect.

7/30/2019 00103

12/32

Mary A. Field 10

FIGURE 1 Timeline of Four-Axle Dump Truck Law Implementation.

17 Months

10 Months

4 Months

1993 1994 1995 1996

Law passes Maryland Legislature

October, Congressional Approval

January, Emergency Regulations In Effect

August, Final Regulations In Effect

Begin Enforcement Education Period

January, Full Enforcement in Effect

7/30/2019 00103

13/32

Mary A. Field 11

Certification of the Lift-Axle Weight

The use of an air pressure setting to control the weight on the lift-axle raised significant

concern for abuse from law enforcement. The need to prevent the driver from adjusting the air

pressure during highway operation was resolved by requiring the air pressure control and gauge

to be mounted outside the cab at the time of certification. The Task Force Agreement specified

that a certification process be used to assure the lift-axle weight requirements were met.

Therefore, definition and development of the certification standards was central to committee

efforts at assuring enforceability.

In the certification development phase site visits were beneficial in understanding the

scope of the process to be certified. A subcommittee of MSP/CVED enforcement and the

working group co-chairs made a field visit to a second-stage manufacturer whose business

included retrofitting dump trucks with lift-axles. Several four-axle dump trucks with lift-axles

were loaded to the 31,780-kilogram limit at a local gravel pit equipped with platform scales. The

trucks were weighed and then driven to the second-stage manufacturers location and weighed

on portable scales. The lift-axle weight was adjusted with the air pressure control until the

required weight of 5,448 kilograms (12,000 pounds) was attained and the kilopascals (kPa)

(poundforce per square inch or PSI) recorded. The participation of law enforcement in this

process was essential to validation and acceptance of the use of kPa setting in place of actual

axle weighing. Further, the role of enforcement in establishing the procedure to be followed by

the second-stage manufacturer for axle certification was an affirmation of their commitment to

successful implementation. The documentation of a procedure for the certification was an

extremely important break-through for the working group.

7/30/2019 00103

14/32

Mary A. Field 12

An important finding was noted during the fieldthe air pressure setting for the

minimum axle weight varies from vehicle to vehicle. Therefore, each vehicle must be weighed

by the second-stage manufacture in order to obtain an accurate kPa for the certification. The

second-stage manufacturer then records the air pressure setting on the certification and issues it

to the registered owner.

Following the establishment of the process for certification additional issues related to the

certification were raised by law enforcement, including:

1. who would be allowed to perform the testing and certify the lift-axle pressure setting;

2. what control or oversight would the State have over the certification process;

3. what information would be required to appear on the certification, other than the air

pressure setting;

4. second-stage manufacturers are not required to be licensed in Maryland, therefore a

certification issued by an out-of-state manufacturer is acceptable. This could result in a problem

for enforcement in prosecuting fraudulent certification cases; and

5. how would enforcement identify and prosecute fraudulent certifications if the

certification was not issued or stamped by MVA at the time of registration, or a copy maintained

with registration documentation.

These are major issues for enforcement and they consumed many hours of discussion

with no wholesale resolution. At the conclusion of discussions the working group agreed that

any second-stage manufacturer could conduct actual weighing and calibration of the air pressure

gauge to determine the kPa (PSI).

The kPa settings were required to be recorded for three axle weights since a weight

tolerance was specified in the law5,448 kilograms, 4,540 kilograms, and 3,632 kilograms

7/30/2019 00103

15/32

Mary A. Field 13

(12,000/10,000/8,000 pounds). The three lift-axle weight limits are the required weights when

the GVW is 31,780 kilograms, 29,510 to 31,779 kilograms, or 24,970 to 29,509 kilograms.

Over the course of a five-month period the joint State-industry committee met formally

on a monthly basis to review and revise drafted regulations based on previous committee

discussions. A spirit of cooperation and desire to succeed in shaping workable regulations was

maintained and contributed to the timely implementation of the regulations.

Enforcement of the Regulations

Law enforcement of the regulations was phased-in over a period of 6 months. During

this 6-month period education and training sessions were held for enforcement, and industry

vehicles found to be in violation were issued warnings. As a rule, enforcement of regulations is

rarely phased-in beyond one month and the 6-month phase-was a major concession for

enforcement. Realistically, the 6-month period proved to be necessary for enforcement to

acquire and test equipment in the field setting. The impact on the weight enforcement process is

evident from review of an internal memorandum of the MSP/CVED highlighting the training

requirements for implementation of the regulations. Enforcement training on the lift-axle

regulations and certification stressed the following points for determining compliance:

1. in order for a dump service vehicle to be certified by a second-stage manufacturer it

must have the air regulator, which controls the pressure on the lift-axle, on the outside of the cab;

2. the regulator must be on the rear of the cab, where it is visible to a law enforcement

officer;

3. an external air valve must be on the right side easily accessible and in line with the air

system, and it must maintain the minimum air pressure that is recorded on the certification; and

7/30/2019 00103

16/32

Mary A. Field 14

4. a copy of the certification issued by a licensed second stage manufacturer must be

carried inside the vehicle (Sgt. Prematta, unpublished data ). Figure 2 depicts the enforcement

procedure in general terms.

7/30/2019 00103

17/32

Mary A. Field 15

FIGURE 2 Enforcement Inspection of Certification.

Enforcement Stops

4-Axle Dump Truck

Officer Checks Air Pressure

Gauge Location

Officer Checks the

Certification Document

Gauge kPa Below Required kPa Gauge kPa Agrees with Certification

Location Inside Cab Location Outside Cab

Citation /Safety Equipment

Repair Order IssuedTruck Proceeds

7/30/2019 00103

18/32

Mary A. Field 16

Enforcement of the regulations required the MSP/CVED to purchase 25 special air

gauges for field enforcement at a cost of approximately $30,000. The gauges were purchased

through a manufacturer and constructed according to specifications from MSP. The

specifications were intended to assure durability and accuracy that would be acceptable in court.

Two master gauges were acquired and used to certify the accuracy of the air gauges every four

months. Full enforcement of the regulations started in January 1996. According to MSP, during

the first full year of enforcement there were no reported court cases involving the air gauges.

A survey of enforcement actions related to the four-axle dump service vehicle was made

by MSP/CVED in December 1996. The survey results were summarized in an internal

memorandum and are presented in Table 1 (Sergeant Prematta,

unpublished data

).

7/30/2019 00103

19/32

Mary A. Field 17

TABLE 1 Year-One Enforcement of Four-Axle Dump Service Vehicle Regulations

Violation

Number of

Citations Issued

Number of

Warnings Issued

Operating in excess of 29,510 kg, not in compliance with

regulations

17 2

Operating in excess of 24,970 kg, lift-axle not fully

engaged

4 10

Operating with lift-axle kPa below the certification kPa 5 13

Lift-axle failing to support the required weight, issued

repair order

NA 2

7/30/2019 00103

20/32

Mary A. Field 18

Most of the enforcement officers surveyed indicated a reluctance to enforce the

regulations because:

1. the regulations are too complicated to enforce;

2. the lack of knowledge or understanding of the regulations by judges makes it

difficult to testify effectively in court; and

3. there continues to be confusion in enforcement (and industry) over who will recertify

a vehicle that has been issued an SERO for the gauge or lift-axle.

The complexity of regulations has ramifications in the field and in the courtroom where

successful prosecution of citations is contingent on judicial understanding and interpretation of

the law. Judicial support and understanding, in turn, is essential to effective and committed

enforcement.

The recertification of a gauge or lift-axle that has been issued an SERO may be

completed by any manufacturer or second-stage manufacturer and does not require MSP

verification , in contrast to other SERO violations. This is a concern for enforcement and is a

weakness in the law, and consequently, the enforcement effort.

Status of Phase-out of Three-Axle and Phase-in of Four-Axle Dump Truck

The proclaimed purpose of the Maryland law change is to eliminate, over a 20-year

period, the 29,510-kilogram (65,000-pound) three-axle dump truck and replace it with a more

road friendly 31,780-kilogram (70,000-pound) four-axle dump truck. From the perspective of

achieving its main objective

elimination of the three-axle dump service vehicle in twenty

years

the law appears to be succeeding. A year following full enforcement of the regulations

(January 1, 1997) there were 459 four-axle dump trucks registered at 31,780 kilograms. As of

July 1, 2000 the number of three-axle dump trucks registered at 29,510 kilograms decreased by

7/30/2019 00103

21/32

Mary A. Field 19

54 percent from 1993. The four-axle dump trucks registered at 31,780 kilograms increased by

463 percent in the four years since implementation, and overall there has been a 24 percent

decrease in dump truck registrations. Table 2 summarizes the transition status as of July 2000.

7/30/2019 00103

22/32

Mary A. Field 20

TABLE 2 Dump Service Vehicle Registrations

12/93 7/00

Three-Axle, registered GVW= 29,510 kg 7,188 3,307

Four-Axle, registered GVW= 31,780 kg 0 2,124

Total: 7,188 5,431

lb = 0.454 kg

7/30/2019 00103

23/32

Mary A. Field 21

The industry conversion/transition away from the more damaging three-axle to the

four-axle dump truck may be an indication that the infrastructure savings estimated in the SHA

study will be realized prior to expiration of the 20-year grandfather provision in 2023.

Major concerns were raised by enforcement prior to implementation of the law, namely

that the law would be difficult to enforce, at best, and strict enforcement would be critical to

compliance (Major Ray Cotton,

unpublished data

). Based on the information provided in this

case study it appears that conflicting priorities and limited resources make strict enforcement

impossible. Given the small number of law enforcement officers allowed by law to enforce the

regulations (approximately 200 MSP and MTAP) the extent of voluntary compliance is

unknown.

IMPLEMENTATION: LESSONS LEARNED

This case study is intended to provide a better understanding and identification of issues

and problems associated with the use of a certification for the regulation of truck size and weight

limits. When compliance with a law, regulation or standard must be determined from

information on a certification, the procedure required to enforce the standard must be minimized

and clearly understood to be enforceable. The major enforcement issues identified as

problematic in this case study are:

1. the law and adopted regulations are too complex,

2. the existence of reciprocity agreement(s) for non Maryland registered vehicles

compound the enforcement,

3. the law may lead to future expansion to other industries and vehicles,

4. the lack of a State agency issued or validated certification opens the door for fraud or

abuse,

7/30/2019 00103

24/32

Mary A. Field 22

5. lack of control of certification process opens the door for abuse by non Maryland

manufacturers/second-stage manufacturers,

6. the inclusion of exceptions to the certification requirement in law further confuse and

sometimes deter enforcement, and

7. inability to enforce the use of fraudulent certifications discourages aggressive

enforcement.

Consideration of new approaches, such as PBS, for determining truck weight limits must

include a significant effort to identify and resolve the enforcement issues up front.

Issues Discussion

Issues 1 through 3

The first three issues provide insight into legislative considerations when developing or

proposing adoption of new methods for determining truck size and weight limits in the United

States. As in the Maryland case, many other States have vehicle weight limit exceptions in law.

One of the most significant reasons given for a lack of enthusiasm in enforcement of the

regulations, is the complexity of the law. Further validation of this point is evident when it is

noted there are provisions in the Maryland law for special exceptions in two counties, as well as

the existence of a long-standing registration reciprocity agreement for dump service vehicles

with the State of Delaware.

Laws and regulations that are too complex and/or complicated by many exceptions

provide an environment that encourages weakened enforcement and increased industry abuse. If

enforcement is weakened the unintended consequence is a lack of incentive for industry to

voluntarily comply. If industry abuse is increased the original purpose of the law is defeated and

benefit to the infrastructure is reduced.

7/30/2019 00103

25/32

Mary A. Field 23

The perfect resolution of these issues is for legislators to pass laws that are clear,

concise, and limited in scope with no exceptions. In reality this is not likely to occur and other

options should be pursued to assure violators are penalized and not ignored. One option that has

been used in a few States is administrative adjudication where the violations are treated as unfair

business practices.

Issues 4 through 7

Issues four through seven directly relate to the certification document and the procedure

followed by second-stage manufacturers. It is likely that all but one of these issues (Issue 6)

could have been resolved among the agencies involved during the regulatory development phase,

had time permitted and there been top level commitment. As it stands now, the certifications are

nothing more than a piece of letterhead paper on which the required information is recorded.

Provided the kPa shown on the certification agrees with the kPa on the air pressure gauge, and

the gauge is properly located, there is no violation.

7/30/2019 00103

26/32

Mary A. Field 24

The certification does not represent a legal document as it is not issued or validated by

a State agency. Further, the manufacturer or second-stage manufacturer is not required to be

authorized by the State to issue the certification and cannot be cited for any inaccurate or

fraudulent information. Resolution of these issues would likely require legislative action,

additional funding for staff, and support from industry. Based on interviews with MSP/CVED,

supported by internal documentation, it appears that given the mounting political pressure from

other industry segments to expand the current law, a legislative fix would be unlikely in the

immediate future (Ronald Prematta,

unpublished data

). Without a commitment of resources

from the administrative agencies involved little will be done to remedy the problem of

unauthorized second-stage manufacturers issuing fraudulent certifications.

Enforcement is aware that fraudulent certifications are being produced and used. The

extent of their use is unknown but a significant concern since so much depends on the accuracy

of the certification if the projected benefits to the infrastructure are to accrue. Jurisdictional

authority to issue or validate certifications should be a concern for any PBS that includes a

certification for enforcement.

A significant lesson from the Maryland experience is that agreement and cooperation

from the agencies with jurisdiction should be a primary goal in the development stage of any

PBS approach, prior to implementation. The agency initiating any change should bear in mind

that failure to gain the support and buy-in from the agencies that will have a role in

administering the initiative can create a major stumbling block that may never be resolved.

The existence of exceptions to the lift-axle regulations results in frustration and confusion

for enforcement. The exception in law allows four-axle dump service vehicles to operate at

31,780 kilograms in two counties without having to comply with the lift-axle regulations

7/30/2019 00103

27/32

Mary A. Field 25

implemented in January 1995. A second exception is created by an administrative reciprocity

agreement with a border State that allows trucks operating intrastate on the Eastern Shore to

benefit from the regulations. These politically motivated exceptions are beyond the control of

enforcement and beyond communicating the problem to the administering agency there is little

enforcement can do. If the legislature or administration chooses not to resolve the problem in

favor of better enforcement, the consequence may be no enforcement.

CONCLUSION

The lessons to be learned from this case study are useful in putting implementation of

PBS for truck size and weight regulation into perspective. The issues may be grouped into five

broad categories:

1. institutional barriers (between agencies) that include jurisdictional constraints,

2. procedural barriers or impediments to implementation,

3. unrealistic time constraints or deadlines,

4. enforcement and industry comprehension, and

5. conflict in agency priorities.

Although the discussion placed emphasis on the use of a certification for documentation

and enforcement, as has been suggested for PBS, the other issues noted are of equal importance

to effective truck size and weight regulation and enforcement. This case study highlights the

difficulties associated with taking a well-intended concept from the drawing board to full

implementation.

The enforcement of truck size and weight regulations is critical to compliance, and by

extension, safety. The State enforcement community has reached a satisfactory level of comfort

with the Federal and State truck size and weight laws that are prescriptive. For a PBS using a

7/30/2019 00103

28/32

Mary A. Field 26

certification to be enforceable the regulations must be enforceable on a generic basis, not on a

vehicle-specific basissuch as by vehicle configuration.

The Maryland dump truck certification is an example of a regulation that has limited

enforceability. It requires vehicle-specific information that requires the second-stage

manufacturer to have certified scales, access to gravel or dirt for loading the vehicle to the

required GVW, and the physical space for completing the procedure. None of these

requirements or conditions were identified or envisioned prior to passage of the law, or in the

agreement of the task force following passage.

Thus, the procedural requirements and the absence of licensing standards for second-

stage manufacturers, makes it unlikely that every certification checked by enforcement was

issued by a second-stage manufacturer that actually weighed the vehicle, as required. In fact, it

is possible that the air pressure setting shown on some certifications is based on knowledge of

the general range of air pressure settings for other vehicles, or generated from computer

simulation software. This is the reality of the situation created when no enforceable control

mechanism exists for charging the second-stage manufacturer who issued the certification.

Acknowledging the problem exists is the first step to resolution. Bringing the agencies

involved together for discussing the issues and formulating a strategy to remedy the problem

would be the logical next step. A public-private partnership approach that supports a State

testing center for recalibration or recertification of trucks issued an SERO is one example of an

option that might be considered in the Maryland case should the agencies decide to take the next

step.

It is important to develop and maintain high performance standards for the operation of

heavy vehicles and equipment on the highway. The PBS approach for regulation of truck size

7/30/2019 00103

29/32

Mary A. Field 27

and weight limits can be beneficial if they augment the more traditional form of regulation, not

as a replacement. Performance standards should be advocated and developed where they

improve the operation of existing and future heavy vehicles, and provide tangible benefits to

highway safety.

Vehicle stability and control standards are one example of PBS being suggested and

developed in other countries (10) The U.S. interest in pursuing a PBS approach to truck size and

weight regulation for the Federal highway system is timely. Given the need to address

increasing freight demand on the highways, a PBS approach for increasing truck weight limits

above the current ceiling may be necessary to reducing truck traffic. If regulations are to be

performance-based there must be sufficient time given to assure participation from the

enforcement community in the development of implementation strategiesenforceability is

essential.

7/30/2019 00103

30/32

Mary A. Field 28

REFERENCES

1. Pearson, John. Highway Safety Performance Criteria in Support of Vehicle Weight

and Dimension Regulations: Overview of Discussion Paper. In Workshop Proceedings. Federal

Truck Size and Weight Policy: Looking Beyond the Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study,

2000.

2. Clarke, Robert M.. Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Considerations. In

Transportation in the Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions. Transportation

Research Board Committee on Motor Vehicle Size and Weight, 2000.

3. Federal Highway Administration.Highway Statistics. 1972, 1980.

4. DeWitt, William and Jennifer Clinger. Intermodal Freight Transportation. In

Transportation in the Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions. Transportation

Research Board Committee on Intermodal Freight Transport, 2000.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1995 Truck Size and Weight Performance-Based

Workshop. Report No.4 ofComprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, 1996.

6. U.S. Department of Transportation. Draft Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight

Study, Volume III Scenario Analysis, 1999.

7. Nix, Fred P.. Feasibility of Performance-Based Standards for Truck Size and Weight

Regulations, Draft Report No.12 of U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size andWeight Study,

1996.

8. Roaduser International Pty Ltd. and ARRB Transport Research Ltd.. Performance-

based Standards (PBS) for Heavy Vehicles in Australia, Field of Performance Measures.

National Road Transport Commission, Melbourne, Australia, December 1999.

9. Maryland Transportation Article, Section 13-919 Dump Service registration.

7/30/2019 00103

31/32

Mary A. Field 29

10. Prem, Hans, Euan Ramsay and John McLean. Performance Based Standards for

Heavy Vehicles: Assembly of Case Studies. National Road Transport Commission, Melbourne,

Australia, December 1999.

7/30/2019 00103

32/32

Mary A. Field 30

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Year-One Enforcement of Four-Axle Dump Service Vehicle Regulations

Table 2 Dump Service Vehicle Registrations

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Timeline of Four-Axle Dump Truck Law Implementation

Figure 2 Enforcement Inspection of Certification