Summary

This research focuses on issues faced by state agencies when trying to successfully implement regulatory relief of overweight commercial motor vehicle requirements during emergencies. The objectives of this research are to (a) develop consistent definitions of emergencies, emergency commodities (classification/type), and other concepts; (b) identify successful practices, procedures, and processes for increasing weight limits during emergencies, including coordination and harmonization with neighboring jurisdictions; (c) develop a decision framework that considers different emergency scenarios that are linked with successful practices, procedures, and processes; and (d) highlight successful communication practices and training opportunities to conduct before emergencies occur. This report describes the research performed so far in this project, along with relevant findings for the following tasks:

• Task 1 covered project management to ensure effective and efficient coordination of other tasks, deliverables, and team members.
• Task 2 involved reviewing domestic and international literature to document emergency and disaster declaration types and their potential effect on oversize/overweight (OS/OW) regulations, definitions of emergency commodities, and lessons learned from past events.
• Task 3 involved interviewing stakeholders and reviewing current best practices.
• Task 4 attempted to develop and describe the roadmap for success of findings and recommendations.
• Task 5 involved developing a decision framework that was used to design and develop the guide, implementation plan, webinar slides, and flowcharts.

Task 2 Findings

The review of the literature (Task 2) revealed the following:

• Special Permitting versus Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) Waiver: Special permitting for OW vehicles (or OS vehicles) during an emergency, while it may alter, reduce, or otherwise circumvent the normal permitting process, does not provide full relief from that process, whereas FMCSR relief is just that—it waives the requirements of the FMCSR specified in the declaration and allowed under the U.S. Code (USC).
• Emergency Special Permitting and FMCSR Relief Process: The special permitting process for OW (or OS) vehicles during emergencies and disasters differs from the FMCSR relief process, though both can be, and often are, implemented in a single emergency or disaster declaration by a state.
• Requirement of a Presidential Stafford Act Disaster Declaration for Special Permitting: The key difference between special permits and FMCSR relief, aside from the fact that they depend on separate and distinct parts of the USC and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), is that overweight special permitting always requires a presidential Stafford Act disaster declaration.
• Relief Initiation: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration can initiate FMCSR relief in a state or multiple states, whereas only a state can implement special permitting

of OS/OW vehicles since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has no authority to do so.

• Types of Highways Considered for Regulatory Relief: Special permitting can also apply differently depending on the disaster. States implementing special permitting in a disaster can, if there is a presidential Stafford Act disaster declaration, implement special permitting on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and on state roads, or, if authorized to do so by state statutes, they may issue a declaration that applies to only state roads and not to the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

Task 3 Findings

The stakeholder interviews and review of current best practices in Task 3 revealed the following (detailed conclusions are in Chapter 3):

• Definition of Emergency and Emergency Commodities: The permitting agency’s understanding of emergency and emergency commodities is based on the definition in the state governor’s executive order (as per individual state statute), the president’s disaster declaration, or as stated by the state/federal emergency management office. For most permitting offices, involvement in defining emergencies rarely occurs.
• Variation in Special Permit Issuance: There are variations in how states issue permits, which can depend on the state permitting office’s available resources and staffing.
• Different Enforcement Standards: Commercial vehicle enforcement during emergencies may also depend on available resources. Some states have lenient mechanisms that allow enforcement officers and the shipper to interpret the OW/divisible shipment requirements and compliance with the law and disaster declaration. Education is also needed to address when the disaster declaration can be carried as a special permit and when it does not apply in order to avoid carriers taking advantage of the special permitting provisions.
• Confusion Regarding the Types of Roads in an Emergency Order: The language in governors’ emergency declarations can sometimes confuse carriers and authorities. States may waive weight limits on non-interstate highways. Because many states combine declarations waiving the FMCSRs (a federal-only waiver) and emergency overweight special permitting for divisible and non-divisible loads, carriers may presume that one or the other types of roadways are included when a declaration may not apply.
• Confusion about Restricted Loads and Routes during Emergencies: Although regular OS/OW carriers understand the restricted load requirements, unfamiliar carriers operating with overweight loads during declared emergencies may not regularly carry OS/OW loads and, therefore, may not understand the importance of restricted load requirements.
• Standardized Communication Processes within or outside an Agency: Communication is vital during an emergency, and although informal communication channels offer some efficiencies, they may fail in a crisis. Interpersonal relationships may be a basis for informal communication networks between neighboring states, agencies, and regular OS/OW carriers during emergencies but must be considered supplemental to standardized communication channels.
• Definition of Divisible and Non-divisible Loads: The state issues special permits during emergencies based on a clear understanding of divisible and non-divisible loads;

however, distinct definitions of divisible and non-divisible loads may not be as clear to nontraditional carriers applying for special permits.

• Confusion about Safety Requirements: Confusion exists about special permits and FMCSR waivers for carriers and truck drivers. State permitting agencies seem clear that truck and load safety requirements do not change irrespective of weight permitting requirements during an emergency.
• Bridge Regulations: Truck size and weight provisions of the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and special permits may affect states’ compliance with 23 CFR 650 Subpart C, the National Bridge Inspection Standards. Of particular importance are the potential impacts on bridge load rating and posting requirements. FHWA division offices should work with the states to determine whether the FAST Act’s weight limit changes require bridges to be re-rated and posted (restricted) with respect to the maximum load-carrying capacity in accordance with 23 CFR 650 Subpart C.

Task 4 and Task 5 Findings

These tasks relied on the findings of the previous tasks and feedback from representatives of the end users of the final deliverables. The discussions provided valuable insights into the challenges and considerations associated with managing emergency declarations and ensuring smooth coordination across states and jurisdictions. A need for streamlined communication and guidelines to ensure effective responses to emergencies emerged along with following needs:

• Development of a Contact List: There was a strong consensus on the need for a clear and accessible contact list of state truck permitting agencies.
• Commodity List: While many stakeholders saw value in proactively creating a list of essential commodities before or during emergencies, there was concern about the practicality of such an endeavor. The workshop attendees converged on listing steps to develop such a commodity list as a more realistic solution.
• Best Practices and Guidelines: The guide should provide high-level guidance, supplemented by best practices.
• Pre-Disaster Approach: One attendee mentioned the opportunity to develop pre-disaster processes, such as ensuring carriers reach safe parking spots before disasters strike.
• Communication: This project was seen as an opportunity to streamline informal communication, and accordingly, some guidance should be included in the guide.

The final deliverables were developed based on the findings of all these above-mentioned tasks, and best practices were woven into the guide along with the tools and resources that the intended audience can use.