Harmonizing Commercial Vehicle (Truck) Weight Requirements for Emergency Transportation of Critical Commodities

Abstract

During a declared emergency, states may temporarily implement regulatory relief of overweight commercial motor vehicles to better assist emergency response activities. Often, emergencies go beyond state boundaries, with a need to harmonize activities with surround states, creating issues for freight and the trucking industry. The objectives of this research were to assist state truck permitting offices to (1) develop consistent definitions of emergencies, emergency commodities (classification/type), and other concepts; (2) identify successful practices, procedures, and processes for increasing weight limits during emergencies, including coordination and harmonization with neighboring jurisdictions; (3) develop a decision framework that considers different emergency scenarios that are linked with successful practices, procedures, and processes; and (4) highlight successful communication practices and training opportunities to conduct before emergencies occur. This paper focuses on issues faced by state oversize/overweight truck permitting agencies when trying to successfully implement regulatory relief of overweight commercial motor vehicle requirements during emergencies.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, various states and federal agencies eased commercial motor vehicle (CMV) weight limit regulations to facilitate safe and efficient emergency transportation of medical and other essential relief supplies. States used a variety of approaches that sometimes conflicted and were difficult to navigate. For example, Colorado suspended the gross weight provisions for vehicles weighing 80,001–84,999 lb that were transporting emergency goods and services, whereas neighboring states increased their interstate weights to 90,000–100,000 lb.

Similarly, Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, and Maryland implemented regulatory relief guidelines during the pandemic. However, because some suspended restrictions are only applicable while traveling in and through a particular state, CMV operators can face many challenges or confusion when ensuring compliance with regulations while traveling across jurisdictional lines. Although longer and heavier vehicles face similar regulatory hurdles at the state and federal levels, this paper specifically focuses on CMVs.

Although federal and state agency response to the COVID-19 pandemic was swift, it also highlighted an issue often faced by oversize/overweight (OS/OW) CMV operators that traverse different regulating jurisdictions: a lack of consistency in definition and harmonization of policies and regulations. A recent guide to emergency management at state agencies ( 1 ) recognizes the challenges to state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation-related agencies in implementing and coordinating across local, tribal, state, regional, and federal levels.

State emergency planning has improved in the last decade, and advances in emergency management approaches support the efforts of transportation agencies. At the same time, risks of adverse natural and anthropogenic events are increasing because of new complexities, including aging infrastructure, supply chain challenges, and population hazard exposures and behaviors.

This paper focuses on issues faced by state agencies in successfully implementing regulatory relief of overweight CMV requirements during emergencies. The research objective of this study were to explore various definitions of emergencies at state permitting agencies and the development of emergency commodities (classification/type). In addition, the paper identifies successful practices, procedures, and processes for increasing weight limits during emergencies, including harmonization with neighboring jurisdictions. Although this paper focuses on regulatory inconsistencies during emergencies, we acknowledge that many of these issues reflect broader inefficiencies in the freight regulatory environment, which are beyond the scope of this analysis.

Emergency Management Frameworks and Emergency Special Permitting for Overweight Divisible Loads

A brief explanation of emergency management frameworks and the laws and regulations governing the way that the U.S. responds to emergencies is necessary to understand some of the issues identified in this research. The U.S. utilizes a National Response Framework (NRF) and National Preparedness System, developed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to respond to emergencies. Most states adhere to some part of these systems as a necessary condition to receive federal funds for disaster relief and preparedness activities.

The authority at the federal level for emergency management comes from the Stafford Act contained in Public Law (PL) 100-707 that amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. This act, as later amended, forms the basis for all emergency management and response in the U.S., with elements enacted in each state that implement some part of the Stafford Act. Critical for this examination, the Stafford Act defines the process through which states obtain presidential disaster declarations.

As part of the NRF, FEMA developed the National Incident Management System (NIMS) after September 11, 2001, which built on a preexisting system at the micro level known as the Incident Command System (ICS) originally developed by CALFIRE in the 1970s to manage the integration of resources for wildland firefighting. ICS is now a component of NIMS. ICS defines how multiple agencies and organizations come together at incident command posts to manage specific responses. NIMS defines how emergency operations centers at the federal, state, county, and local levels manage the resources that flow into a disaster and to incident command posts in support of requests from incident commanders. The emergency supplies delivered using special permits for overweight divisible loads are part of that resource flow. Additionally, cities, counties, and states implement mutual aid agreements or join regional or national mutual aid compacts that define how they will share resources during a response and reimburse other jurisdictions for their expenses to an out-of-jurisdiction response, which may come through federal funds administered by FEMA for Stafford Act declared disasters. Compacts related to special permitting or harmonization of vehicle regulations are similar in the way they develop and function to the way the mutual aid systems work in emergency management: They are negotiated agreements, each with its own specific measures and requirements.

Emergency Special Permitting at the federal level comes from authorities created in Public Law 112-141, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (or MAP-21) Act. This granted federal authority to states for them to issue special permits for overweight divisible loads on federal highways during periods of national emergency. As implemented in the U.S. Code, this authority is only valid for presidentially declared disasters under the authority and procedures established by the Stafford Act.

Under PL 112-141, as implemented in the U.S. Code, the relevant authority at the state level can implement the issuance by the state permitting office of special permits for divisible overweight loads, citing relevant state laws and the presidential disaster declaration. Usually, this declaration is given by a governor, but some states place this authority elsewhere. Additionally, many state laws allow the relevant state authority to issue similar special permitting declarations at a state level when there is not a presidential disaster declaration, although these apply only to state roads, not to the federal highway system.

Absent a regional compact or agreement, a special permit only applies within the state issued. Other states have no obligation to honor an out-of-state special permit for an overweight divisible load. States implement their special permitting process as their legislature and regulatory authorities decide. Some states choose to implement restrictive emergency special permits that specifically apply to certain routes or commodities, whereas other states issue permissive special permits that allow any commodity on any route.

Finally, under 49 CFR 390.23, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) may waive some Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for vehicles and operators supporting the response during a declared disaster. This authority is exclusive to FMCSA and separate from that related to special permitting for overweight divisible loads, although the two may appear in the same state disaster declaration, citing the different authorities.

Review of the Literature

This section contains a review of the literature related to the relief of OS/OW limitations on CMVs in emergencies and disasters. In addition to the literature review and to determine how OS/OW special permitting worked in practice, recent emergency declarations posted to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Emergency Declarations Portal were also studied.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has documented COVID-19-related overweight limit changes in 44 states and the District of Columbia ( 2 ). Researchers also reviewed documentation and regulations from various governing authorities regulating OS/OW permitting. Currently, the authorities regulating OS/OW permitting in each state include:

• State DOTs in 41 states.

• Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in Connecticut, Maine, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia.

• Departments of Public Safety (DPSs) in Georgia and South Dakota.

• Highway patrols (HPs) in North Dakota and Wyoming.

This study also investigated literature about regulatory relief at the federal, state, and local levels. This includes AASHTO’s OS/OW permit harmonization guide ( 3 ), best-practices report, and maximum dimensions and weights of motor vehicles guide ( 4 ).

The research team examined the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s information on OS/OW load permits and updated guidance on special permits, in addition to the new permit harmonization updates, agreements, or meeting notes from the following regional state highway transportation official organizations:

• Mid-America Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO).

• Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (WASHTO).

• Northeast Association of State Transportation Officials (NASTO).

• Southeastern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (SASHTO).

Although many organizations and studies make recommendations about OS/OW permitting, the relief of OS/OW limitations for CMVs in emergencies depends primarily on state and federal laws and regulations. At the federal level, laws and regulations govern when states may issue OS/OW special permits in emergency situations on the interstate highway system. However, states still issue the permits. At the state level, laws and regulations govern when the state may issue special permits for state roads and designate the agency or department of the state government responsible for issuing special permits.

Additionally, both state and federal laws and regulations govern what constitutes an emergency and provide the legal authority for the president or governor to declare an emergency and trigger the consideration of special permitting procedures. Thus, the literature review focused on laws and regulations governing disaster declarations, emergency management and emergency powers, OS/OW limitations and permitting, and documents produced by organizations and groups designed to harmonize state permitting processes related to the relief of size and weight limitations during emergencies or disasters.

The review measured how the system works in practice by examining the CVSA Emergency Declarations Portal for U.S. state declarations related to the size and weight limits of CMVs. Researchers conducted a detailed analysis of federal and state declarations affecting size and weight limits to explore the laws and regulations affecting the relief of OS/OW limits in disasters and emergencies in the U.S.

Best Practices and Harmonization of Regulations

Harmonization efforts at a regional and national level, like the 2009 WASHTO guide, have a long history. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) first published a synthesis of uniformity efforts in OS/OW permits in 1988 ( 5 ). In May 2015, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation submitted a report to Congress required by section 32802 of PL 112-141, MAP-21 ( 6 ). Following the passage of PL 112-141 in 2012, AASHTO’s Subcommittee on Highway Transportation (SCOHT; predecessor of the Subcommittee on Freight Operations) and several regional state highway and transportation organizations engaged in efforts to harmonize OS/OW permitting between states to reduce impediments to interstate commerce. The recommendations of these organizations—provided to state officials—encouraged the states to adopt standard procedures for escort vehicles, signage, flags, warning lights, travel restrictions related to days/hours of operation, holiday travel restrictions, permit maximums, permit revision and extension processes, and the time a permit is valid for a single state trip. SCOHT defined harmonization as establishing “baseline restrictive thresholds for various characteristics of an issued permit” that allowed and encouraged states to find “appropriate, less restrictive, measures” ( 4 ). SCOHT focused on two core concepts in its efforts, with harmonization rather than uniformity as a goal: first, that states agree not to become more restrictive in their permitting process than they were when AASHTO began its harmonization effort; and second, that states agree not to be more restrictive than an agreed-on base level or threshold approved by SCOHT by “established voting processes.” Both principles came with the caveat “where practicable.”

Unfortunately, AASHTO SCOHT members, although representing their states, could not change the permitting regulations without action by state legislatures or through established rulemaking procedures within their states. SCOHT recommendations asked states with permit conditions more restrictive than those of the SCOHT harmonization recommendations to “review their laws, regulations, and polices” and “consider changing them as appropriate to reach the threshold” ( 4 ). However, state permit issuing offices, regulatory authorities, and legislatures had no legal obligation to do so. Although the SCOHT efforts to harmonize markings, lighting, and escorts achieved some successes as to base levels / thresholds, wide variations remain in permitting practices, permit requirements, route planning, and size and weight limits from state to state, between state practice and that of federally recognized tribal governments and U.S. territories, and between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, as further studies have demonstrated.

In addition to SCOHT harmonization efforts, the May 2013 Skagit River bridge incident—in which a span of the Interstate 5 bridge over the Skagit River in the state of Washington collapsed because of an oversize load striking several of the bridge’s overhead support beams—led to a National Transportation Safety Board investigation and the previously mentioned congressionally mandated U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study and report ( 7 ) into how FHWA and states regulated the movement of oversize vehicles. That study recommended that FHWA develop a best-practices guide focused on automated permitting systems.

FHWA contracted with Leidos and the Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association to prepare a best-practices report ( 8 ). In response to recommendations from the GAO report, the FHWA study included a literature review, an inventory of state permitting practices and systems, state case studies, and other research focused on automated vehicle permitting, routing, and escort driver certification and recommended best practices that states might implement.

Additionally, three other studies examined state permitting practices ( 9 – 11 ). Middleton et al. ( 9 ) performed a Texas DOT-funded study focused on OS/OW routing in Texas and included a review of technology solutions used to improve permit issuance and auto-route generation, bridge safety assessments, and notification of carriers to changes in route restrictions. The researchers also solicited stakeholder input, conducted a workshop and case study, and solicited feedback from industry and government stakeholders.

Another study performed an AASHTO/Transportation Research Board (TRB)-funded survey to identify state permitting practices and requirements related to superloads (non-divisible extremely heavy or large-dimension loads) that require special permits above the requirements for most other OS/OW permits ( 10 ). Superloads require significantly more coordination and routing consideration. Each state defines such loads differently, but the process for obtaining such permits tends to be more onerous than for other OS/OW loads ( 9 , 12 ).

A TRB-sponsored study examined multistate/interstate movements of OS/OW loads, both intrastate and interstate state permitting requirements, and public costs of inefficiencies created by the various state requirements related to permitting practices and routing. The report made recommendations with regard to state practices to reduce such inefficiencies ( 11 ).

Additionally, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) conducted a literature review and hosted a one-day industry forum in 2014 to identify OW/OS research priorities in Texas. In their report, TTI researchers listed the following forum-developed priorities for research ( 12 ):

• Rationale and enforcement of size and weight regulations in Texas.

• Documentation of the restrictions imposed on OS/OW loads.

• Use of innovative technology and systems to enhance enforcement.

• Quantification of the benefits to the Texas economy associated with OS/OW loads.

• Quantification of the cost of higher design standards (more resilient roads) to accommodate OS/OW loads.

Harmonization of regulation with neighboring states was not a priority that emerged from the discussion groups at this industry forum, although it was discussed. Both simplification of regulation and harmonization of rules imposed within Texas were also topics. In particular, the lack of uniformity related to state, county, and municipal rules and the inconsistent enforcement across the state both engendered discussion in several areas ( 12 ). TTI studies suggest that harmonization and best-practices efforts for OS/OW vehicle permitting may be both a macro- and micro-level issue—whereas national/regional efforts at harmonization such as those of AASHTO or SASHTO focus on interstate harmonization, some states may also benefit from harmonization and best practices efforts at an intrastate level.

Recently, AASHTO’s Subcommittee on Freight Operation sponsored a permit data harmonization project documented in a report ( 3 ). The primary objective of this project was to identify opportunities to harmonize data elements and how information is organized and displayed on commercial vehicle special permits among states. The “Permit Data Harmonization Model Permit & Best Practices” report is a resource that provides ideas for agencies to consider when updating their permits to be more harmonized with other states.

Some efforts continue to develop and sign agreements implementing a wide variety of new permit harmonization updates and agreements from regional state highway transportation official organizations. For instance, MAASTO states have already harmonized their emergency divisible loads (EDLs) by signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The purpose of this MOU is to establish a minimum EDL permitted weight that all 10 MAASTO states can agree to and adopt. As stated in the MOU, in case of a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act and corresponding state declaration, this MOU creates a MAASTO region-wide EDL management policy. The MOU emergency policy expands emergency interstate truck weights from 80,000 lb to a permitted weight of 88,000 lb, with no more than a 10% increase per axle to the extent such weight increase is practicable. This approach considers the critical and immediate need for relief supplies, the ability and desire of the trucking industry to increase emergency weights when possible, and the overweight permitting processes and engineering characteristics distinct to each state. MAASTO’s coordination with state and local governments during declared major disasters ensures permitted loads can safely reach the areas in need once off the interstate system.

The research team also learned that WASHTO, NASTO, and SASHTO are also working on agreements or projects to harmonize the emergency loads; however, there was not enough information publicly available on these efforts to evaluate them at the time of the literature review.

International Best Practices and Harmonization Efforts

At the international level, harmonization efforts are products of the national or supranational institutional systems conducting them. As such, the institutional system’s characteristics play an important role in their adoption. For example, a strong central government conducts regulation differently from a federal system of government. Therefore, lessons drawn from international examples include the caveat that their transferability to an American context may not align with the U.S. federal system of governance, especially given the significant role played by states in regulating OS/OW loads.

An AASHTO/TRB-funded review of Canada’s experience with regulating large commercial vehicles and the half century of processes involved with harmonizing standards across Canada’s 10 provinces ( 13 ). The review noted that the need for harmonization arose in the wake of Canada’s national highway system’s rapid growth in the 1960s. The “significant and differing” provincial regulations proved to be a detrimental economic barrier to internal trade. Thus, the provinces arranged for a cooperative group to enact an MOU, thereby creating a set of minimal dimensional and weight standards for commercial vehicles to operate in all provinces.

In 2007, FHWA and AASHTO sponsored a study with American Trade Initiatives—FHWA-PL-07-002, “Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Enforcement in Europe”—to examine and review the procedures utilized by the European Union and its member states to enforce commercial OS/OW laws ( 14 ). As part of the study, researchers examined the ongoing harmonization efforts of the European Union and the challenges that have arisen through implementation across the member states. The European Parliament’s dual prioritization of internal consistency within the union and individual nations’ economic interests led to the need to develop minimal dimensional and weight standards that would allow for frictionless cross-union trade. These standards, codified in 1996 as European Union Council Directive 96/53/EC, are a set of minimum requirements that member states are obligated to implement with their national regulatory agencies.

However, since these standards only set minimums with regard to cross-border trade that member states must allow, individual nations can set higher national standards. The European Union has also made attempts to reduce economic friction and harmonize OS/OW load standards with neighboring nonmember states. In 2000, the Swiss government worked with the European Commission to raise the minimum weight allowance from 28 to 40 metric tons in exchange for an increased heavy vehicle tax applied to overweight vehicles crossing the country.

In 2016, AASHTO sponsored a study provided a brief analysis of global OS/OW permitting processes ( 11 ). As part of that study, researchers created various case studies of federal countries and the harmonization efforts they pursued. The researchers noted that, in Mexico, OS/OW permitting and regulation are primarily handled by the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation, not the individual Mexican states, because the federal government maintains more than half of Mexico’s paved road network. This unique circumstance allowed Mexico to maintain a uniform set of rules on the nation’s main commercial arteries, reducing friction and barriers to economic activity.

Review of Current Practices

The research team developed a hybrid approach for this portion of the study, involving an online survey of various stakeholders and following up with phone interviews and virtual workshops involving key respondents to the survey. This process allowed researchers to collect information from state permitting agencies and other stakeholders (FHWA, etc.). This approach ensured broader and more diverse participation and a higher quality outcome.

Researchers conducted the online survey, interviews, and virtual workshops to (1) compile best practices, procedures, and decision processes for increasing weight limits during emergencies used by state and local transportation agencies; (2) determine the rationale behind these processes, practices, and decision processes; and (3) understand and document best practices for harmonization with neighboring jurisdictions. Specifically, the questions developed for this hybrid approach documented the following:

• Stakeholder’s key concerns with regard to the movement of overweight trucks during emergencies.

• Agency understanding of emergency and emergency commodities.

• Agency department and staff positions responsible for emergency coordination with nearby states and local agencies.

• Agency lessons learned from implementing emergency special permits for overweight trucks.

• Best practices implemented by stakeholders during emergencies.

The research team shortlisted and performed outreach to diverse stakeholder members (with regard to background and geography). This process included contacting representatives from state Truck Permit Issuing Offices, which, as noted above, can vary in different states. Thus, researchers contacted five DMVs (Connecticut, Maine, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia), two DPSs (Georgia and South Dakota), two HPs (North Dakota and Wyoming), and 41 DOTs. Before conducting this outreach effort, researchers developed survey and interview questions. Researchers then submitted and received approval for these questions, along with the stakeholder list, from the NCHRP research panel.

The research team distributed the online survey to each state’s Truck Permit Issuing Office, with a request to forward the invitation to an appropriate staff member responsible for permitting OS/OW loads.

The online survey contained 13 questions with nested logic (i.e., the questions changed based on the survey responses). Researchers also developed another list of follow-up interview questions to elicit more in-depth responses from the agencies implementing best practices or those struggling to implement best practices. Stakeholder interviews and survey responses allowed the research team to better understand the processes, procedures, and challenges faced by Truck Permit Issuing Offices when issuing special permits during emergencies and disasters.

The research team received 49 survey responses, but some were incomplete or contained identifiable state information or duplicate responses from the same permitting agency. In total, 37 unique state responses were obtained, as shown in Figure 1. The following section summarizes key findings from the survey.

Figure 1.

Map of survey respondents.

Phone Interviews and Virtual Workshops

Following the survey, researchers conducted interviews with the online survey participants based on their responses. The questions focused on understanding best practices and lessons learned about overweight special permitting during disasters and emergencies. Personnel from six state truck permitting agencies (Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, and South Dakota) and FHWA were interviewed. The research team conducted two invitation-only virtual workshops that allowed brainstorming and the opportunity to bring multiple perspectives to the table. Researchers selected workshop dates by polling the potential participants identified in cooperation with the research panel. Two dates worked based on the availability of participants needed to reach a critical number of more than 20 people.

These virtual workshops used video conferencing software (i.e., Microsoft Teams) and screen sharing for consensus building. The research team engaged stakeholders with questions and scenarios to gain an understanding of the variety of approaches used for overweight special permitting during emergencies and how state agencies conducted inter- and intra-agency coordination during disasters. The workshop also tried to map information flows during a disaster. Additionally, researchers and participants examined ways to develop a coordinated emergency plan that might inform the decision support framework developed in task 5 of this project.

For specifics on the collected data, analysis performed, survey design, sampling methods, and response rates, please refer to the final report of this project ( 15 ).

Survey Results and Identified Issues

The following discussion identifies preliminary and general trends observed in the survey results and further documented as part of the interviews and virtual workshops.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 overweight/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 to avoid carriers taking advantage of the special permitting provisions.

• Confusion with regard to 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.

• Confusion about safety requirements: Confusion exists about special permits and FMCSR waivers for carriers and truck drivers. State permitting agencies seem clear that truck safety and load safety requirements do not change during an emergency and are not regulations waived under FMCSR waivers by FMCSA, although some carriers and drivers may conflate and confuse the two.

• 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.

Solutions

Emergency and disaster declarations can cause confusion because such declarations may rely on multiple elements of law that define emergency and disaster differently. More specifically, special permitting for overweight divisible loads during disasters includes two different elements of federal law, although only one applies broadly to all states. Further, although federal law applying to emergencies and disasters affects overweight special permitting for divisible loads and state-issued permitting on the interstate highway system, states can also issue special permits for overweight loads on a state level according to state law. State-level declarations can only apply to state roads. In both cases, federal and state, FMCSR may allow states to waive elements of the law related to hours of service.

Federal- and state-level disaster declarations for special permitting may also include FMCSR waivers in the same declaration. This fact, along with the differing state-level laws for special permits, emergency and disaster definitions and authorities, and confusion about interstate/federal rules and regulations, leads to much confusion for carriers, CMV enforcement officers, and state permitting offices when these different conditions come into effect in an emergency or disaster.

Definition of Emergency and Emergency Commodities

A truck permit issuing office’s definition of emergency and emergency commodities is that definition that is contained in the state’s declaration implementing special permitting. For permitting offices, involvement in specifying the language used in the declaration or specifying emergency commodities varies by state. For states adopting more restrictive models of special permitting, there is an opportunity to develop and evaluate an emergency commodity list for preparedness before the emergency.

Although there is no single generic list of emergency commodities, and the commodities needed depend on the nature of the emergency, several state-level emergency declarations resulting in special permitting for divisible loads on state roads include commodity-specific restrictions, usually related to harvests or a particular commodity shortage such as fuel, heating oil, or propane.

For more generalized disasters or emergencies, such as pandemics, hurricanes, or floods, misunderstandings among carriers and enforcement officers exist about the commodities covered by the declaration and the permits. States should be on the lookout for abuse of the special permitting process to move overweight divisible loads that may not otherwise qualify as emergency supplies and communicate appropriate information to state enforcement officials.

The following recommendations are based on the best practices that were identified during this project. An approach toward developing and evaluating the commodity list can be based on the following three-step process:

• Step 1: Understand the nature of emergency and needs (i.e., commodity specific emergency versus diverse commodity emergency).

• Step 2: Develop a list of commodities needs based on the understanding of the final usage.

• Step 3: Evaluate the commodity list.

Figure 2 provides examples of developing a list of emergencies and emergency commodities based on the steps described above. The list of emergencies and emergency commodities provided is not comprehensive and comprises only a small sample from the data or information collected during this project. The stakeholders and decision-makers are advised to develop their own comprehensive list but can use this as a starting point.

Figure 2.

Sample of emergencies and potential emergency commodities.

Definition of Divisible and Non-Divisible Loads

Divisible load definitions and interpretations about divisible loads can vary by state. One way to define divisible loads is by defining what they are not—that is, by defining non-divisible loads.

FHWA defines non-divisible loads as “any load or vehicle exceeding applicable length or weight limits which, if separated into smaller loads 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 eight work hours to dismantle using appropriate equipment.”

Thus, a divisible load is anything other than a load defined by FHWA as non-divisible, since a shipper could otherwise divide, dismantle, or separate the load in less than eight work hours so as not to exceed width, length, or weight limits.

Some confusion may still exist with regard to the non-divisible load definition. FHWA issued a clarification in 2018 noting, “the word ‘or’ at the end of (ii) means that a load that meets any one or more of the three definitions shall be considered non-divisible. States are required to use the federal definition only when considering whether to issue a non-divisible load permit allowing an overweight vehicle or load to operation on the Interstate System and roads providing reasonable access to and from the Interstate.”

In practice, many states in the past tended to focus on the third part of the FHWA definition (the eight-work-hour standard), particularly as it related to counterweights or other items that take less than eight hours to remove. However, FHWA noted, “loads may still be defined as non-divisible if the removal of the objects will make the load unable to perform the function…and/or unusable for which it was intended.” This clarification notes the conditions of the first part of the FHWA definition. As such, a non-divisible load is one that meets any one of the three parts of the FHWA definition (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Divisible versus non-divisible loads as per federal law.

However, most emergency supplies shipped during disasters under divisible load special permits are often readily divisible (e.g., loads of lumber, pallets of bottled water, etc.). In any case, under special permitting, only divisible loads qualify, and any non-divisible loads require a regular permit through the normal process administered by the state (the same is true of oversize loads).

Additionally, several state-only emergency declarations in the past related to fuel shortages may affect FMCSR-related relief more than overweight special permitting. Hazardous materials shipments have load-specific safety requirements related not to weight but rather to headspace left in tanks to allow for expansion or off-gassing to prevent leaks or incidents. No regulation relieves carriers of these safety parameters. Thus, although there are some hazardous materials that could be shipped in overweight situations because of their specific gravity being the determining factor, the determining factor may relate more often to tank capacity and safety parameters for shipment rather than the weight of the liquid or gas in the tank, given that shippers already have an economic incentive to maximize the amount shipped within safety parameters under normal conditions.

Harmonization of Special Permits and Enforcement

Before any potential crises arise, it is critical for states to initiate coordination. Being proactive means that in the face of a disaster or emergency, there is no delay caused by bureaucratic hurdles, allowing for swift and decisive planning and action. Therefore, drafting of the MOU document should be undertaken before the emergency or disaster, ensuring (1) it is comprehensive; it details key points, roles, and responsibilities; and (3) it outlines terms of understanding. Based on the feedback from various stakeholders, the steps detailed in Figure 4 assist in developing a robust MOU.

Figure 4.

Steps for developing MOUs for states harmonizing their EDLs during emergencies.

The next phase is the broad dissemination of the finalized MOU to all pertinent departments and officials in the signatory states. It is crucial that the MOU’s provisions not only are on paper but also are implemented rigorously. As with all such agreements, a regular review mechanism is essential to ensure the MOU remains relevant and effective. Any required updates, stemming from evolving circumstances or feedback, should be incorporated promptly. The MOU should be reviewed periodically to ensure its relevance and effectiveness, and it should be updated as needed based on changing circumstances, requirements, or feedback from stakeholders.

Some considerations and potential challenges with developing MOUs include:

• Balancing state sovereignty and regional collaboration: States may be wary of ceding too much regulatory control to a regional body. It is essential to strike a balance between regional harmonization and preserving states’ rights to regulate their own affairs.

• Regular updates: The MOU and its associated regulations may need periodic reviews and updates to ensure they remain relevant and effective. What works now might not work in a decade, given changing technology, infrastructure, and emergencies.

• Communication channels: It is crucial to maintain clear and open communication channels between the participating states. Miscommunication could undermine the effectiveness of the MOU.

• Overreliance: Although MOUs provide a framework for collaboration, states should not solely rely on them. Individual state preparedness and resilience building are equally critical.

In conclusion, regional MOUs such as the one adopted by MAASTO states represent a forward-thinking approach to disaster preparedness and response. Although they offer numerous advantages, it is also important to be aware of the challenges and ensure the MOUs are living documents, regularly updated to meet the evolving needs of the region.

Communications and Coordination

Communication during emergencies is crucial, but informal channels may not be reliable when disaster strikes. Informal communication networks often rely on interpersonal relationships between neighboring states, agencies, and regular carriers. However, during emergencies, personnel and non-typical carriers may come from out of state, lacking experience or understanding of special permits, which can lead to confusion.

Currently, state and trucking associations use diverse communication methods for special permits during emergencies, often relying on informal networks. Furthermore, truck permit issuing offices may not be aware of emergency management communications and NIMS, limiting their ability to coordinate with emergency management agencies during disasters.

NIMS and the ICS are the way all levels of an emergency response (federal, state, and local) coordinate their response and share information. Resources, like those transported using overweight special permits, flow through this system to incident commanders at the bottom level of the response. The modularity of NIMS/ICS allows any organization to plug in to the structure, work together with a common operating picture, coordinate their actions, and share the information necessary to manage resources and the response. Failing to understand these frameworks and integrate into them during an emergency can seriously hamper an organization’s ability to respond effectively to that emergency.

A potential solution is to formalize communication networks and align them with FEMA standards (Figure 5). FEMA’s communication standards are integral to ensuring effective coordination during emergencies. These standards are encapsulated in the NIMS, which provides a consistent framework for incident management across all levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations. It is important to note that FEMA does not have the authority to establish or regulate freight transportation policies. Although FEMA can serve as a valuable collaborator, the U.S. DOT is the more appropriate agency to engage with for discussions and recommendations related to freight transportation. This includes educating emergency management officials, shippers, carriers, and truck permit issuing offices about the CVSA Emergency Declaration Portal ( 16 ) and the importance of timely submissions. State agencies, state DOTs, and truck permit issuing offices should establish uniform, formal communication and organizing principles that can integrate into federal, state, regional/district, and county emergency operations centers.

Figure 5.

Steps for standardizing communication protocols.

For efficient communication and coordination, the type of communication can be divided into four categories—intra-agency, inter-agency, regional and external—and the following changes can be made:

• Intra-agency communication will benefit from formal processes and regular meetings by developing processes.

• Inter-agency communication will benefit from establishing a dedicated staff for coordinating with state agencies dealing with emergency and disaster.

• Regional communication will benefit from selecting dedicated champions who can lead monthly meetings.

• External communications will benefit from multiple communication channels, including social media, and redundancy in communication.

National trucking organizations, the National Governors Association, and FEMA should consider incorporating these procedures into NIMS and future emergency management documents. Additionally, they should collaborate with FEMA and the U.S. DOT to develop an independent study training course focused on emergency waivers of FMCSR and special permits for overweight emergency commodity shipments during declared disasters and other state emergencies, and aimed at emergency management, transportation officials, CMV enforcement, and truck permit issuing offices.

CVSA Emergency Declaration Website

Amid the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the development of the CVSA website (see Figure 6) emerged as a successful solution in facilitating the harmonization and coordination of special permits during emergency situations or disaster declarations. This innovative tool serves as a valuable resource, benefiting not only state truck permitting offices but also enforcement staff who rely on it for verifying emergency declarations and ensuring their validity. However, the effectiveness of the CVSA website depends on the timeliness and accuracy of information provided by state permitting offices and the adherence to standardized language.

Figure 6.

CVSA emergency declaration website ( 16 ).

The benefits of the CVSA website are as follows:

• Functionality: The CVSA website serves as a centralized hub for state truck permitting offices and enforcement staff to manage and verify special permits during emergency situations. Its core functionalities include:

• Timely updates: The CVSA website relies on state permitting offices to provide timely updates with regard to emergency declarations and associated information.

• Benefits to stakeholders: The CVSA website has delivered significant benefits to various stakeholders involved in the management of special permits during emergencies.

• State truck permitting offices: State permitting offices can efficiently issue and manage permits, ensuring compliance with emergency regulations and harmonization of practices.

• Enforcement staff: Enforcement personnel can access real-time information on permits, enhancing their ability to enforce emergency declarations accurately.

• Harmonization and coordination: The platform promotes harmonization and coordination among different jurisdictions, reducing confusion and ensuring a unified response to emergencies.

The effectiveness of the CVSA website relies on three key dependencies:

• Timely information: State permitting offices must provide accurate and up-to-date information with regard to emergency declarations and associated permits to maintain the system’s accuracy and relevance.

• Standardized language: Adherence to standardized language and information-sharing practices is essential to ensure seamless coordination and understanding among all users of the platform.

• Education programs: Programs are needed to instruct carriers and drivers on the specifics of permit authorization to improve compliance.

The CVSA website has emerged as a pivotal tool in the efficient management of special permits during emergencies and disaster declarations. Its success lies in its ability to harmonize and coordinate activities across various jurisdictions, benefiting state truck permitting offices and enforcement staff alike. To ensure its continued effectiveness, it is imperative that state permitting offices provide timely updates, adhere to standardized language and information-sharing practices, and provide education or training programs to drivers/carriers. Through the continued support of stakeholders and the commitment to maintaining these key dependencies, the CVSA website will continue to play a vital role in ensuring the smooth operation of special permits during times of crisis.

Analysis of Harmonization Efforts

The success or failure of harmonization efforts in the context of commercial vehicle overweight regulations during emergencies largely hinges on the alignment between state and federal laws and the cooperation of state agencies. For example, the research highlights how efforts such as the Subcommittee on Freight Operations’ harmonization model depend on states voluntarily adopting standardized practices. Success is seen when states proactively participate in MOUs, such as those by the MAASTO region, which streamline emergency weight allowances. However, failures arise from legislative and procedural rigidities that prevent quick adoption of uniform measures. Additionally, informal communication practices during emergencies, although helpful in some instances, can lead to breakdowns in coordination, especially when personnel are unfamiliar with regulations. Addressing these challenges requires institutionalizing formal communication protocols and incentivizing state agencies to align their practices with regional frameworks.

Discussion on Limitations and Future Research

This study acknowledges several limitations in achieving comprehensive harmonization of overweight permitting during emergencies. Variability in state-level legal frameworks, resource constraints in permitting offices, and differing interpretations of emergency-related commodities and loads are notable barriers. Furthermore, the research does not fully explore the implications of federal bridge safety standards and their intersection with emergency weight regulations. Future research could focus on developing automated systems for inter-jurisdictional permit issuance, examining the long-term economic impact of harmonized overweight regulations and creating a database of successful harmonization case studies. Additional work is also needed to refine educational programs targeting nontraditional carriers and enforcement personnel to improve compliance and understanding during emergencies.

Conclusions

During a declared emergency, states may temporarily implement regulatory relief of overweight CMVs to better assist emergency response activities. States face a variety of challenges when attempting to successfully implement these regulatory changes. In this research, the research team identified those challenges, proposed solutions, and clarified any confusions with regard to the special permits during emergencies.

Successful implementation of regulatory relief of overweight CMVs requires states to identify successful practices, procedures, and processes for increasing weight limits during emergencies, including coordination and harmonization with neighboring jurisdictions. This research considers different emergency scenarios and link them with successful practices, procedures, and processes. The research also recommends communication practices and training opportunities before emergencies occur.

During declared emergencies, states often provide temporary regulatory relief for overweight CMVs to support disaster response efforts. However, implementing these changes can be challenging because of confusion around permitting, lack of coordination, and inconsistent practices across jurisdictions. This research identifies common challenges and offers clear, actionable solutions to improve implementation. Key recommendations include:

• Establishing standardized procedures for increasing weight limits during emergencies

• Enhancing coordination and harmonization with neighboring states (e.g., signing MOUs)

• Developing pre-event communication protocols and targeted training for agencies involved in permitting and enforcement

By adopting these practices, states can improve the movement of essential goods during emergencies and better support recovery operations.