Size and Weight Enforcement and Regulations, 7741-7749 [E7-2823]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 20, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7741-7749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2823]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 657 and 658

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-24134]
RIN 2125-AF17


Size and Weight Enforcement and Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the regulations governing the 
enforcement of commercial vehicle size and weight to incorporate 
provisions enacted in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, and; the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and 
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006. This final rule adds 
various definitions; corrects obsolete references, definitions, and 
footnotes; eliminates redundant provisions; amends numerical route 
changes to the National Highway designations; and incorporates 
statutorily mandated weight and length limit provisions.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 22, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Mahorney, Office of 
Freight Management and Operations, (202) 366-6817, or Mr. Raymond 
Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office 
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users may access this document, the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM), and all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket by 
using the universal resource locator (URL) https://dms.dot.gov. It is 
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission 
and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section 
of the Web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by 
accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://
www.archives.gov or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http:/
/www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.

Background

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144), 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 544), and the 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act 
of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396) enacted size and weight 
provisions concerning auxiliary power units, custom harvesters, over-
the-road buses, and drive-away saddlemount vehicle combinations.
    Additionally, the transfer of motor carrier safety functions to the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) established by the 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 
113 Stat. 1748) affected the internal organizational structure of the 
FHWA. Although the responsibility for commercial motor vehicle size and 
weight limitation remained in the FHWA, the references in the 
regulations to the old FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) and its 
officials are obsolete. This action updates these references to reflect 
the changes in the agency's organizational structure.

Discussion of Comments Received to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM)

    On May 1, 2006, the FHWA published an NPRM in the Federal Register 
at 71 FR 25516 to provide an opportunity for public comment on the 
proposed changes to 23 CFR Parts 657 and 658. In response to the NPRM, 
the FHWA received 39 comments. Commenters included 8 State enforcement 
agencies, 9 industry associations, 4 members of Congress, 14 
individuals, a union (multiple members), a law firm representing a 
trucking company, one intercity bus company, and an association of 
State transportation officials. The FHWA considered each of these 
comments in adopting this final rule. The changes made in response to 
those comments are identified and addressed under the appropriate 
sections below.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals

Part 657

Section 657.1 Purpose

    Michigan DOT (MDOT) expressed concerns about using the terms 
``Federal-aid Interstate, Federal-aid primary, Federal-aid Secondary, 
or Federal-aid Urban Systems,'' which are

[[Page 7742]]

no longer used, to describe the size and weight enforcement program, 
and suggested using the term ``National Highway System'' in their 
place.
    FHWA Response: MDOT is correct that the terms identified are no 
longer generally used. However, to ensure the clarity and applicability 
of section 657.1, we chose to retain the terms because they are still 
used in 23 U.S.C. 141(a), and thus in 23 CFR 657.3, to define the 
extent of each State's enforcement obligation. We believe that using 
the term National Highway System, which did not exist on October 1, 
1991, is not used in 23 U.S.C. 141, and is no longer identical to the 
highways systems listed in proposed section 657.1, would generate 
substantial confusion.

Part 658

Section 658.5 Definitions

Commercial Motor Vehicle
    The FHWA proposed to clarify that recreational vehicle movements 
that include transportation to or from the manufacturer for customer 
delivery, sale, or display purposes are not covered by the definition 
of commercial motor vehicle for the purposes of these regulations. Five 
commenters, including Former Congressman Bud Shuster, the National RV 
Dealers Association, the National Automobile Dealers Association 
(NADA), the Ohio State Police, and the Illinois DOT, expressed support 
for the proposal to exclude recreational vehicles even when operated 
for a commercial purpose. Two commenters suggested that the section 
should be clarified to include recreational vehicle dealers as well as 
manufacturers.
    The NADA and the Texas DOT raised concerns regarding what 
constitutes a recreational vehicle. Texas DOT asked whether travel 
trailers, and companies who transport them, were to be excluded as 
well. Additionally, the NADA suggested that FHWA include a definition 
of recreational vehicle, and the Ohio State Police requested a 3-year 
grace period for States to comply with any new definition.
    FHWA Response: The FHWA believes that the same rationale applies 
equally to recreational vehicle dealers and manufacturers. We are 
therefore including dealers as well as manufacturers in this provision. 
Further, it is our intent to include motorized vehicles operating under 
their own power used only for camping or other recreational activities 
in this provision. However, we do not intend to exclude all third party 
commercial entities that transport recreational vehicles from the width 
regulations. For example, a company that transports recreational 
vehicles via tow-bars or on a flat-bed on behalf of a dealer would not 
be exempt because the recreational vehicle, in this instance, becomes 
freight when not being operated by its own power. This would also apply 
equally to travel trailers, which do not travel under their own power. 
We do not believe that a grace period is necessary to comply with this 
rulemaking action because the change simply involves excluding certain 
vehicles from coverage by the width regulations, and relieves the State 
agencies of the burden of enforcing these regulations against these 
vehicles.
Non-Divisible Load or Vehicle
    The NPRM proposed to expand the definition of non-divisible load to 
include vehicles loaded with salt, sand, chemicals or a combination of 
these materials, to be used in spreading the materials on any winter 
roads, and when operating as emergency response vehicles. Four 
commenters expressed support for this proposal, citing the need for 
additional flexibility during poor weather conditions. The American 
Trucking Associations (ATA) opposed modifying the definition of non-
divisible loads to include ``military vehicle transporting marked 
military equipment or materiel.'' Further, the ATA suggested that all 
emergency response vehicles should be eligible for classification as 
non-divisible loads. The American Association of State Highway 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) also recommended that the FHWA work 
with AASHTO to develop a proposed exception to the current non-
divisible load requirement that would allow, but not require, a State 
to issue a permit to an overweight vehicle certified to be carrying an 
urgently needed disaster relief load during a declared emergency. The 
MDOT, while supporting the proposal, asked whether a permit would be 
required as a result of this determination.
    FHWA Response: The FHWA believes that the limiting factors for the 
specific vehicles mentioned in the NPRM are adequate to ensure that 
they are used only during an emergency. Since the proposal would allow 
these vehicles to be considered non-divisible loads, no permit would be 
necessary.
    The suggestions to create a more expansive definition to 
accommodate additional non-divisible loads during declared emergencies 
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and therefore will not be 
addressed at this time. The ATA's opposition to the inclusion of 
``military vehicles transporting marked military equipment or 
materiel'' in the definition of non-divisible loads is also outside the 
scope of this rulemaking. Such military vehicles were the subject of a 
previous rulemaking action, which is now finalized.
Drive-Away Saddlemount Combination
    The FHWA proposed to amend 23 CFR 658.13(e)(1)(iii) to extend to 97 
feet the length limit on drive-away saddlemount combinations that are 
specifically designed to tow up to three trucks or truck tractors, each 
connected by a saddle to the frame or fifth wheel of the forward 
vehicle of the truck or truck tractor in front of it. This provision 
generated 22 comments. The comments focused on the wording of section 
4141 of SAFETEA-LU, specifically whether or not the language was 
intended to include all saddlemount combinations in the new 97-foot 
limit, or only those that include a fullmount. The question arose 
because of the title of newly created 49 U.S.C. 31111(a)(4), ``Drive-
away saddlemount with fullmount vehicle transporter combination.'' 
Section 4141 of SAFETEA-LU defined this term as ``a vehicle combination 
designed and specifically used to tow up to 3 trucks or truck tractors, 
each connected by a saddle to the frame or fifth wheel of the forward 
vehicle of the truck or truck tractor in front of it.'' The definition 
does not refer to a fullmount in the vehicle combination.
    Several commenters expressed the view that the statutory language 
should be interpreted to include only saddlemounts with fullmount. 
Congressman David G. Reichert, AASHTO, and the law firm of Schwerin 
Campbell Barnard LLP believe that the congressional language shows 
clear intent to limit the application of the law to saddlemount 
combinations ``with fullmount.'' In support of this position, several 
commenters expressed concerns about the safety of this configuration. 
Congressman Reichert noted that the ``fullmount saddlemount vehicle, 
had no wheels on the ground, which tends to make the entire vehicle 
combination more stable.'' This view was also shared by Schwerin 
Campbell Barnard LLP, on behalf of General Teamsters Local 174, a 
Seattle-based affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 
Additionally, AASHTO stated, ``the legislated change in the rule 
governing saddlemount vehicles has raised serious concerns among some 
State enforcement officials concerning possible safety and 
infrastructure issues.'' The California Department of Transportation 
asked about the scope of the legislation, specifically whether the new 
length

[[Page 7743]]

regulations would apply on service access routes. Additionally, FHWA 
received 20 general comments from individual Local 174 Teamster 
members, all expressing various safety concerns with regard to FHWA's 
interpretation and the proposed regulatory language.
    Other commenters took the view that the language included, or was 
intended to include, all saddlemount combinations, with or without 
fullmount. In a July 18, 2006, letter to Maria Cino, Acting Secretary 
of the Department of Transportation, Congressman Don Young, Chairman of 
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, stated that the 
NPRM language ``accurately reflects the Congressional intent of section 
4141.'' Congressman Young indicated that as Chairman of this committee, 
he was directly involved in the development of this language during the 
three years leading up to passage of SAFETEA-LU. He further states 
that: ``It was our intention that the term `drive-away saddlemount 
vehicle transporter combination' would include all saddlemount 
combinations, with or without fullmount.'' Three other members of 
Congress also submitted letters stating their involvement in the 
development of the language, and their support for the language as 
proposed in the NPRM.
    The Automobile Carriers Conference (ACC) supported the proposed 
regulatory language and noted that the safety concerns expressed by 
other commenters were unfounded. The ACC refers to a study prepared by 
the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) 
[``Consideration of an Increase in the Overall Length of Triple 
Saddlemount Driveaway Combinations'' (January 2006)]:

    Extensive studies have been performed that prove the safety of 
these combinations. Combinations up to 97 feet have a proven track 
record for complying with brake stopping distances as prescribed in 
FMCSR 393.52. According to the University of Michigan Transportation 
Research Institute, rollover threshold is virtually unaffected when 
increasing the length of a saddlemount combination from 75 feet. 
UMTRI goes on to state that the extended length saddlemount 
combination shows better rearward amplification than a corresponding 
75 foot combination. UMTRI concludes that one could expect that the 
extended length saddlemount combination would exhibit improved 
handling, on the order of 23% reduction in rearward amplification, 
relative to a corresponding 75 foot combination.

    Further, ACC states that ``[s]ince the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, 
actual operational experience in the running [of] saddlemount 
combinations at [a] length up to 97 feet in the United States and parts 
of Canada have had no adverse impact on safety.'' On behalf of JHT 
Holding, Holland and Knight agreed, noting ``that after 107 million 
miles of saddlemount operations since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, 
driveaway saddlemount combinations continue to experience a crash rate 
that is significantly less than the national average for large truck 
crashes in the United States.''
    FHWA Response: The FHWA believes that the use of the words ``with 
fullmount'' in the section heading and in the term defined in the 
section is not dispositive of the matter. The FHWA believes that it is 
important to examine the entire language of the provision, and in 
particular the statutory definition of the term itself, which are both 
necessary to make a reasonable interpretation of the congressional 
intent behind this provision. The FHWA believes that restricting this 
provision to saddlemounts with fullmount would ignore the express 
statutory definition used by the legislators, which is indicative of an 
intent to make the provisions of this section applicable to all 
saddlemount combinations. The definition contains no reference as to 
whether the saddlemount combination must contain a fullmount vehicle, 
which in effect makes the definition, and therefore the provision, 
applicable to saddlemounts that contain a fullmount as well as those 
that do not. The fact that the defined term contains the words ``with 
fullmount'' is not sufficient to override the definition itself, which 
makes no such limitations. This conclusion is supported by the letter 
from Congressman Young, Chairman of the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, who indicates that he was involved in the 
development of the language in question, as well as letters from 
Congressmen Paul Ryan, Michael Burgess, and Kenny Marchant.
    In view of the above, the FHWA maintains that its reading of the 
statute is reasonable, and is retaining in this final rule the language 
proposed in the NPRM, which prohibits the States from enforcing an 
overall length limit of more or less than 97 feet on driveaway 
saddlemount vehicle combinations with up to 3 towed units, with or 
without fullmount.
Definition of Over-the-Road Buses
    The FHWA proposed to incorporate into 23 CFR 658.5 a previously 
established definition of ``over-the-road'' buses found in 42 U.S.C. 
12181(5).
    The American Bus Association and Greyhound Lines, Inc. stated that 
the NPRM's definition of ``over-the-road buses'' was accurate and 
needed nothing further. However, these entities suggested that the FHWA 
should clarify that the definition of a ``covered State'' includes any 
State that enforced an axle weight limit described in the NPRM at any 
time described in the legislation. Both commenters suggested using the 
term ``in'' as opposed to ``during'' in the proposed language in 
section 658.17(k) in order to clarify the statute and regulation.
    FHWA Response: We agree. Section 115 of the Transportation, 
Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of 
Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (119 
Stat. 2408) used the term ``in,'' as opposed to ``during,'' and is 
therefore correct. We also agree with the assertion that the proposed 
definition of ``covered States'' does include all States that enforced 
such a limit at any time during the specified period.

Section 658.13 Length

    As discussed above, the FHWA is amending the specialized equipment 
provision in section 658.13(e)(1)(iii) to incorporate the statutory 
length limit that is now applicable to drive-away saddlemount vehicle 
transporter combinations. Additionally, the FHWA is amending the 
definition to clarify that such combinations must comply with all 
applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, not just the 
provisions contained in 49 CFR Part 393.71.

Section 658.15 Width

    The NPRM proposed to amend 23 CFR 658.5 to eliminate any Federal 
role in regulating the width of recreational vehicles while operating 
under their own power as commercial motor vehicles. As discussed above, 
the FHWA is clarifying that recreational vehicle movements that include 
transportation under their own power to or from the manufacturer for 
customer delivery, sale, or display purposes are not covered by the 
definition of commercial motor vehicle. As such, we proposed to change 
paragraph (c), to exempt recreational vehicles operating under their 
own power from width limitations. The FHWA received no comments to this 
proposal, and will retain the language proposed in the NPRM.

[[Page 7744]]

Section 658.17 Weight

Over-the-Road Buses
    The NPRM proposed to extend the temporary exemption granted by 
Congress for over-the-road buses until October 1, 2009, and to change 
the regulations to reflect the new, 24,000 lb. axle weight mandated by 
Congress (Sec. 115, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. at 2408). Several States 
provided comments and questions regarding the applicability of the 
proposed regulations. The Texas Department of Public Safety and the 
California DOT asked several questions regarding the proposed language, 
the relationship of the exemption listed in section 1309 of SAFEATEA-
LU, and the language contained in the Transportation, Treasury, Housing 
and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006. Specifically, the 
commenters asked whether either provision was mandatory for States, and 
whether the 24,000 lb. provision applied to the steering axle of a 
motorcoach.
Auxiliary Power Units
    Comments relating to the idle reduction systems or auxiliary power 
units (APU) focused on three general areas: whether the APU itself was 
limited to 400 lbs., how the regulation should be enforced, and whether 
the States must allow the 400 lb. tolerance contained in the statute.
    Several commenters pointed out that the language proposed by FHWA 
would limit the weight of the auxiliary power unit to 400 lbs., which 
they believed to be inconsistent with the legislative language. They 
believe instead that the 400 lbs. limit related to the additional 
weight of the vehicle, not the APU itself.
    Several State and industry groups expressed concern or asked how a 
State would enforce the 400 lb. limit with regard to axle, tandem, 
gross weight, and the bridge formula. How would a State determine load 
distribution? What documentation or proof would or should be necessary 
for compliance? What constitutes proof that a unit is ``fully 
functional at all times?'' Additional concerns were raised with regard 
to the possibility of fraudulent certifications and APU look-alike 
devices that might allow additional freight in violation of the rule.
    The ATA stated that the NPRM was inconsistent with congressional 
intent by allowing States the option of allowing either a gross weight 
limit, an axle weight limit exemption, or both. The ATA felt that ``the 
regulation should make it clear that all States must allow the 
additional weight on gross, vehicle, axle and bridge formula limits. 
The regulation should also clarify that the additional authorized 
weight may be inclusive of or in addition to existing state weight 
enforcement tolerances.''
    The ATA, while agreeing with the weight certification requirement, 
also expressed concern that the proposed rule included fuel weight in 
the calculation of the APU's weight. The Owner-Operators Independent 
Drivers Association (OOIDA) urged the FHWA to be flexible in this area, 
suggesting that an acceptable certification would include a certificate 
from the manufacturer, other business records, certification by the 
weight of individual APU components (to allow for units that are self-
manufactured), or a certified scale ticket representing vehicle weight 
before and after the unit is installed.
    Commenters also expressed concern regarding the requirement that 
the APU be ``fully functional at all times,'' stating that they were 
unsure how such a requirement can be certified or documented, and 
requested that FHWA clarify this issue. The OOIDA suggested that the 
operator be able to satisfy this requirement verbally. The OOIDA and 
the Truck Manufacturers Association also believe that the certification 
requirement verifying the APU's weight will eliminate most, if not all, 
enforcement concerns since the driver would gain no freight advantage 
while transporting a non-functioning unit. This would especially be 
true if the unit is temporarily broken. Further, OOIDA requested that 
the rule make it clear that a driver would be required to make the 
necessary certifications only in response to the finding that the 
vehicle is overweight. Several respondents also requested that FHWA 
provide a list of manufacturers of these products, and provide guidance 
to the States regarding enforcement.
    Finally, several commenters asked whether the States are required 
to adopt the 400 lb. exemption.
    FHWA Response: Over-the-Road Buses--Section 1309 of SAFETEA-LU is 
not preemptive. Its purpose is to allow the States to waive the axle 
weight limits on both transit and over-the-road buses at their 
discretion until October 1, 2009. The language in Sec. 115 of the 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act 
of 2006 (119 Stat. 2396, at 2408) is preemptive in nature, but applies 
only to those States defined as ``covered States.'' If a State meets 
the definition of a covered State, it must adhere to the new provision 
on all individual axle weights, including the steering axle. It is 
important to note, however, that this legislation and the supporting 
regulation do not impair a State's ability to weigh over-the-road 
buses. Further, the regulatory language only prohibits the citing of 
single axle weight violations, not violations of the gross, tandem, or 
other weight limits while on the Interstate system.
Auxiliary Power Units
    Section 756 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended 23 U.S.C. 
127(a) to allow an increase in the Federal weight limits by up to 400 
lbs. to account for APUs installed in any heavy-duty vehicle (119 Stat. 
594, at 829). The intent of this provision is to promote the use of 
technologies that reduce fuel consumption and emissions that result 
from engine idling.
    We agree with several of the commenters and have adjusted the 
regulatory language accordingly. FHWA has revised the language to 
eliminate the weight requirement for the APU itself, while allowing up 
to a total of 400 lbs. in axle, tandem, gross, or bridge weight formula 
(which is an axle weight calculation), or the weight of the APU unit, 
whichever is less. For example, a vehicle equipped with an APU that has 
a certified weight of 750 lbs. would be allowed the maximum of 400 lbs. 
additional weight. However, a vehicle with an APU that has a certified 
weight of 300 pounds would be allowed a 300 lb. exemption. This is 
consistent with the statutory language.
    The FHWA understands the concerns of enforcement agencies and users 
about the weight certification requirements. The FHWA believes that the 
certification of the APU's weight must be in writing, but can include a 
wide range of options, including a manufacturer's certification 
(sticker, specification plate, etc), certified scale tickets listing 
the vehicle's weight both before and after the unit's installation, a 
component parts list with listed weights of each component if the unit 
is manufactured by the owner or operator, etc., so long as it 
accurately reflects the weight of the unit and is available to roadside 
enforcement officers. As for the inclusion of fuel in the overall 
weight calculation of the unit, we have concluded upon further 
consideration that the empty weight of the APU is more appropriate, 
given that many of these units will utilize the truck tractor's fuel 
supply.
    The statutory requirement for a ``demonstration or certification'' 
that the unit is ``fully functional at all times'' is more problematic. 
We believe that a manual demonstration, or a certification letter which 
clearly states the unit's

[[Page 7745]]

operational characteristics if the unit is temporarily broken down, 
should provide sufficient proof. FHWA agrees with several commenters 
that there will be little or no incentive for a driver to install and 
transport a non-working APU. We also believe that there would be little 
need to require a driver to provide proof of weight and operability 
unless the vehicle is over the weight thresholds specified in the 
regulations. Additionally, we agree that the increased weight must be 
allowed in addition to any enforcement tolerances that are currently 
authorized under Federal law.
    It is important to note that section 756 of the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005 which amended 23 U.S.C. 127 does not preempt State enforcement 
of its weight limits on all highways; rather, it prevents the FHWA from 
imposing funding sanctions if a State authorizes the 400 lb. weight 
limit on their Interstate system. Therefore, it remains for each State 
to decide whether it will allow the increased weight limits for APUs. 
However, a State must adhere to the provisions of section 658.17 if it 
chooses to allow the additional weight.

Section 658.23 LCV Freeze; Cargo-carrying Unit Freeze

    The NPRM proposed to replace obsolete references to the Office of 
Motor Carriers with references to the FHWA. In drafting the replacement 
regulatory text in the NPRM, the FHWA inadvertently changed the word 
``must'' to ``may'' in the last sentence of subsection (c). We did not 
propose, nor did we intend, to change the substantive requirements 
contained in this subsection. The FHWA did not receive any comments in 
response to the proposals contained in this section. Therefore we have 
corrected the regulatory text to reflect the current regulatory 
requirements and to update the obsolete references to the Office of 
Motor Carriers.

Appendix A to 23 CFR Part 658--National Network--Federally-Designated 
Routes

    The FHWA proposed to change route designations within the State of 
New Mexico on certain portions of the National Network. The State of 
New Mexico submitted a comment clarifying the changes to route number 
designations for routes on its portion of the National Network. These 
changes are numerical only and will not add or remove routes from the 
original network. Additional changes include: changing NM 491 to U.S. 
491; changing U.S. 516 to NM 516, and; deleting U.S. 666 in its 
entirety. The FHWA is therefore amending Appendix A to reflect these 
route number changes.

Appendix B to 23 CFR Part 658--Grandfathered Semitrailer Lengths

    One commenter pointed out that Appendix B refers to 23 CFR 
658.13(h), which no longer exists, and suggests making the appropriate 
modifications to correct the error.
    FHWA Response: As stated in the NPRM, the FHWA is aware that 
section 658.13 was reorganized in a previous rulemaking action, at 67 
FR 15110, March 29, 2002, and that the provisions that formerly 
appeared in paragraph (h) are now found in paragraph (g). Therefore, 
the FHWA is adopting the language proposed in the NPRM to correct this 
error.

Miscellaneous Comments

General Comments on FHWA's Size and Weight Program

    Several individuals submitted general comments on the FHWA's size 
and weight program. Among the comments were suggestions to eliminate 
double and triple vehicle combinations on the highways, restricting the 
length of landscape trucks and trailers, mandating pavement standards 
to provide for 10 ton-per-axle weight limits in all weather conditions, 
allowing 90,000 lbs. gross weight on six axle tractor-semitrailers, and 
generally revising section 658.15 and section 658.17 to accommodate 
larger, heavier, hybrid vehicles that are currently not allowed on the 
Interstates or National Network.
    FHWA Response: These comments address issues that were not raised 
in the NPRM, and are therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
Additionally, the vehicle weight limits for Interstate highways are 
statutory (23 U.S.C. 127), as are the vehicle width and length limits 
on the National Network (49 U.S.C. 31111-31115). None of them can be 
changed by FHWA.

FHWA Authority

    One commenter questions the FHWA's legal authority to amend the 
regulations as proposed in the NPRM. The commenter indicates several of 
the proposals, including those that propose to replace references in 
the regulations to the old Office of Motor Carriers with references to 
the FHWA, are illegal because section 101(a) of the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748) 
(MCSIA) requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator to 
carry out any duties and powers related to motor carriers or motor 
carrier safety. He indicates that after the creation of FMCSA, various 
driver and vehicle safety inspection functions were transferred from 
FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers to FMCSA in a final rule published on 
October 19, 1999 (64 FR 56270), but that the final rule failed to 
transfer, and maintained within the FHWA in violation of the statute, 
the enforcement of commercial motor vehicle size and weight laws and 
regulations affecting the safe design of trucks.
    The FHWA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of the 
provisions of the MCSIA and its alleged effect on FHWA's authority over 
the commercial vehicle size and weight program. The provision in 
question is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 113(f)(1). This provision, which 
describes the powers and duties of the Federal Motor Carrier 
Administrator, reads as follows:

    ``(f) Powers and Duties.--The Administrator shall carry out--(1) 
duties and powers related to motor carriers or motor carrier safety 
vested in the Secretary by chapters 5, 51, 55, 57, 59, 133 through 
149, 311, 313, 315, and 317 and by section 18 of the Noise Control 
Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4917; 86 Stat. 1249-1250); except as 
otherwise delegated by the Secretary to any agency of the Department 
of Transportation other than the Federal Highway Administration, as 
of October 8, 1999 * * *'' (emphasis added)

    For purposes of this discussion, it is clear that the FMCSA's 
Administrator is delegated by statute the duties and powers related to 
motor carriers and motor carrier safety vested in the Secretary by, 
among other provisions, chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code. 
However, we note that this statutory delegation is limited to duties 
and powers ``related to motor carriers and motor carrier safety'' in 
that chapter. This clearly refers to the motor carrier and motor 
carrier safety functions that were delegated to the FMCSA in the 1999 
final rule cited by the commenter (64 FR 56270), which are very 
different from the commercial motor vehicle size and weight 
limitations, duties, and functions, which are in part located in 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 311, and which remained delegated to the FHWA. Duties 
and powers under other subchapters of chapter 311 which are related to 
motor carrier and motor carrier safety functions such as the Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program and State grants, and the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that affect motor carriers and 
drivers, were delegated to the FMCSA by the 1999 final rule. Duties and 
powers relating to the commercial motor vehicle size and weight 
limitations, which are

[[Page 7746]]

established by law, not only in Chapter 311 of title 49 United States 
Code, but also in Chapter 1 of title 23 U.S.C. (sections 127 and 141), 
remained delegated to the FHWA Administrator (see 71 FR 30828).
    The commercial motor vehicle size and weight program is different 
from the motor carrier and motor carrier safety duties carried out by 
the FMCSA, and serve to establish limitations which the States are 
required to implement and enforce in order to protect and preserve the 
infrastructure and overall highway safety in highways that have 
received Federal assistance for construction and maintenance. It is not 
a regulation of motor carriers or their drivers, although these 
limitations affect the dimensions of the vehicles operated by these 
entities. The commercial motor vehicle size and weight program, 
including its regulation of the State's authority over vehicle 
limitations, is directly related to the Federal-aid highway program and 
Federal-aid highway funding. It does not involve the type of motor 
carrier or motor carrier safety oversight that Congress intended to be 
delegated to the FMCSA in the MCSIA provisions. As a result, it has 
appropriately remained delegated to the FHWA, as part of this agency's 
duties to administer the Federal-aid highway program and highway 
safety.
    Finally, we note that Congress is fully aware that the commercial 
vehicle size and weight program remained in FHWA. As part of recent 
major highway program reauthorization acts and related oversight, 
congressional committees have requested and received information on 
FHWA's implementation of changes to the size and weight program. The 
Department would surely have received direction from Congress during 
all the years since the enactment of the MCSIA if Congress had intended 
this program to be delegated to an agency other than the FHWA.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would 
not be significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rule will not 
adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. This 
action changes out-dated references to offices within the FHWA and 
updates the current regulations to reflect changes made by the Congress 
in SAFETEA-LU and other recent legislation. Additionally, this action 
would add various definitions; correct obsolete references, 
definitions, and footnotes; eliminate redundant provisions; amend 
numerical route changes to the National Highway designations; and 
incorporate a statutorily mandated weight limit provision. There will 
not be any additional costs incurred by any affected group as a result 
of this rule. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any 
action taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter 
the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees or loan 
programs. Consequently, a regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this action on 
small entities and have determined that the action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The FHWA certifies that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has 
preliminarily determined that this proposed action would not warrant 
the preparation of a federalism assessment. Any federalism implications 
arising from this rule are attributable to SAFETEA-LU sections 4112 and 
4141. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State government 
functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), 
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, 
or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this rule 
does not contain collection of information requirements for the 
purposes of the PRA.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). 
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1 
million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in 
compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will 
evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent 
stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and 
tribal governments and the private sector.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not cause any 
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately 
affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would 
affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under Executive Order 12630.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and 
has determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality 
of the environment.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the

[[Page 7747]]

action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
tribes; would not impose substantial compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 
summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant 
energy action under that order because it is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have 
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of 
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory section listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross-reference this section with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Parts 657 and 658

    Grants Program--transportation, Highways and roads, Motor carriers.

    Issued on: February 13, 2007.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends Chapter I of title 
23, Code of Federal Regulations, by revising Parts 657 and 658, 
respectively, as set forth below:

PART 657--CERTIFICATION OF SIZE AND WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 657 to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127, 141 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111, 31113 
and 31114; sec. 1023, Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; and 49 CFR 
1.48(b)(19), (b)(23), (c)(1) and (c)(19).

0
2. Revise Sec.  657.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  657.1  Purpose.

    To prescribe requirements for administering a program of vehicle 
size and weight enforcement on the Interstate System, and those routes 
which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the 
Federal-aid primary, Federal-aid secondary, or Federal-aid urban 
systems, including the required annual certification by the State.

0
3. Revise Sec.  657.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  657.3  Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions in 23 
U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. As used in this part:
    Enforcing or Enforcement means all actions by the State to obtain 
compliance with size and weight requirements by all vehicles operating 
on the Interstate System and those roads which, prior to October 1, 
1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Primary, Federal-aid 
Secondary, or Federal-aid Urban Systems.
    Urbanized area means an area with a population of 50,000 or more.

0
4. Revise the first sentence of paragraph (a) and revise paragraph (b) 
of Sec.  657.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  657.11  Evaluation of operations.

    (a) The State shall submit its enforcement plan or annual update to 
the FHWA Division Office by July 1 of each year. * * *
    (b) The FHWA shall review the State's operation under the accepted 
plan on a continuing basis and shall prepare an evaluation report 
annually. The State will be advised of the results of the evaluation 
and of any needed changes in the plan itself or in its implementation. 
Copies of the evaluation reports and subsequent modifications resulting 
from the evaluation shall be forwarded to the FHWA's Office of 
Operations.

0
5. Revise paragraphs (b), (e), and (f)(3)(iii) of Sec.  657.15 to read 
as follows:


Sec.  657.15  Certification content.

* * * * *
    (b) A statement by the Governor of the State, or an official 
designated by the Governor, that all State size and weight limits are 
being enforced on the Interstate System and those routes which, prior 
to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Primary, 
Urban, and Secondary Systems, and that the State is enforcing and 
complying with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112. 
Urbanized areas not subject to State jurisdiction shall be identified. 
The statement shall include an analysis of enforcement efforts in such 
areas.
* * * * *
    (e) A copy of any State law or regulation pertaining to vehicle 
sizes and weights adopted since the State's last certification and an 
analysis of the changes made.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Permits. The number of permits issued for overweight loads 
shall be reported. The reported numbers shall specify permits for 
divisible and nondivisible loads and whether issued on a trip or annual 
basis.

0
6. Revise Sec.  657.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  657.17  Certification submittal.

    (a) The Governor, or an official designated by the Governor, shall 
submit the certification to the FHWA division office prior to January 1 
of each year.
    (b) The FHWA division office shall forward the original 
certification to the FHWA's Office of Operations and one copy to the 
Office of Chief Counsel. Copies of appropriate evaluations and/or 
comments shall accompany any transmittal.

0
7. Revise Sec.  657.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  657.19  Effect of failure to certify or to enforce State laws 
adequately.

    If a State fails to certify as required by this regulation or if 
the Secretary determines that a State is not adequately enforcing all 
State laws respecting maximum vehicle sizes and weights on the 
Interstate System and those routes which, prior to October 1, 1991, 
were designated as part of the Federal-aid primary, Federal-aid 
secondary or Federal-aid urban systems, notwithstanding the State's 
certification, the Federal-aid funds for the National Highway System 
apportioned to the State for the next fiscal year shall be reduced by 
an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount which would otherwise be 
apportioned to the State under 23 U.S.C. 104, and/or by the amount 
required pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 127.

PART 658--TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT, ROUTE DESIGNATIONS--LENGTH, WIDTH 
AND WEIGHT LIMITATIONS

0
8. The authority citation for part 658 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111, 31112, and 
31114; sec. 347, Pub. L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 419; sec, 756, Pub. L. 
109-58, 119 Stat. 829; sec. 1309, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1219; 
sec. 115, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2408; 49 CFR 1.48(b)(19) and 
(c)(19).


0
9. Amend Sec.  658.5 by revising the definitions of ``commercial motor 
vehicle'' and paragraph (2) of the definition of ``nondivisible load or 
vehicle''; and adding definitions of ``drive-away saddlemount vehicle 
transporter combinations'' and ``over-the-road bus'' to read as 
follows:

[[Page 7748]]

Sec.  658.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Commercial motor vehicle. For purposes of this regulation, a motor 
vehicle designed or regularly used to carry freight, merchandise, or 
more than ten passengers, whether loaded or empty, including buses, but 
not including vehicles used for vanpools, or recreational vehicles 
operating under their own power.
    Drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combination. The term 
drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combination means a vehicle 
combination designed and specifically used to tow up to 3 trucks or 
truck tractors, each connected by a saddle to the frame or fifth wheel 
of the forward vehicle of the truck tractor in front of it. Such 
combinations may include up to one fullmount.
* * * * *
    Nondivisible load or vehicle. 
    (1) * * *
    (2) A State may treat as nondivisible loads or vehicles: emergency 
response vehicles, including those loaded with salt, sand, chemicals or 
a combination thereof, with or without a plow or blade attached in 
front, and being used for the purpose of spreading the material on 
highways that are or may become slick or icy; casks designed for the 
transport of spent nuclear materials; and military vehicles 
transporting marked military equipment or materiel.
    Over-the-road bus. The term over-the-road bus means a bus 
characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage 
compartment, and typically operating on the Interstate System or roads 
previously designated as making up the Federal-aid Primary System.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  658.13 by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii) and adding 
paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  658.13  Length.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combinations are 
considered to be specialized equipment. No State shall impose an 
overall length limit of less or more than 97 feet on such combinations. 
This provision applies to drive-away saddlemount combinations with up 
to three saddlemounted vehicles. Such combinations may include one 
fullmount. Saddlemount combinations must also comply with the 
applicable motor carrier safety regulations at 49 CFR parts 390-399.
* * * * *
    (h) Truck-tractors, pulling 2 trailers or semitrailers, used to 
transport custom harvester equipment during harvest months within the 
State of Nebraska may not exceed 81 feet 6 inches.

0
11. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec.  658.15 to read as follows:


Sec.  658.15  Width.

* * * * *
    (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other 
provision of law, a State may grant special use permits to motor 
vehicles, including manufactured housing, that exceed 102 inches in 
width.

0
12. Revise paragraph (k) and add paragraph (n) of section Sec.  658.17 
to read as follows:


Sec.  658.17  Weight.

* * * * *
    (k) Any over-the-road bus, or any vehicle which is regularly and 
exclusively used as an intrastate public agency transit passenger bus, 
is excluded from the axle weight limits in paragraphs (c) through (e) 
of this section until October 1, 2009. Any State that has enforced, in 
the period beginning October 6, 1992, and ending November 30, 2005, a 
single axle weight limitation of 20,000 pounds or greater but less than 
24,000 pounds may not enforce a single axle weight limit on these 
vehicles of less than 24,000 lbs.
* * * * *
    (n) Any vehicle subject to this subpart that utilizes an auxiliary 
power or idle reduction technology unit in order to promote reduction 
of fuel use and emissions because of engine idling, may be allowed up 
to an additional 400 lbs. total in gross, axle, tandem, or bridge 
formula weight limits.
    (1) To be eligible for this exception, the operator of the vehicle 
must be able to prove:
    (i) By written certification, the weight of the APU; and
    (ii) By demonstration or certification, that the idle reduction 
technology is fully functional at all times.
    (2) Certification of the weight of the APU must be available to law 
enforcement officers if the vehicle is found in violation of applicable 
weight laws. The additional weight allowed cannot exceed 400 lbs. or 
the weight certified, whichever is less.

0
13. Revise paragraphs (c) and (e) of Sec.  658.23 to read as follows:


Sec.  658.23  LCV freeze; cargo-carrying unit freeze.

* * * * *
    (c) For specific safety purposes and road construction, a State may 
make minor adjustments of a temporary and emergency nature to route 
designation and vehicle operating restrictions applicable to 
combinations subject to 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112 and in 
effect on June 1, 1991 (July 6, 1991, for Alaska). Minor adjustments 
which last 30 days or less may be made without notifying the FHWA. 
Minor adjustments which exceed 30 days require approval of the FHWA. 
When such adjustments are needed, a State must submit to the FHWA, by 
the end of the 30th day, a written description of the emergency, the 
date on which it began, and the date on which it is expected to 
conclude. If the adjustment involves alternate route designations, the 
State shall describe the new route on which vehicles otherwise subject 
to the freeze imposed by 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112 are 
allowed to operate. To the extent possible, the geometric and pavement 
design characteristics of the alternate route should be equivalent to 
those of the highway section which is temporarily unavailable. If the 
adjustment involves vehicle operating restrictions, the State shall 
list the restrictions that have been removed or modified. If the 
adjustment is approved, the FHWA will publish the notice of adjustment, 
with an expiration date, in the Federal Register. Requests for 
extension of time beyond the originally established conclusion date 
shall be subject to the same approval and publications process as the 
original request. If upon consultation with the FHWA a decision is 
reached that minor adjustments made by a State are not legitimately 
attributable to road or bridge construction or safety, the FHWA will 
inform the State, and the original conditions of the freeze must be 
reimposed immediately. Failure to do so may subject the State to a 
penalty pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 141.
* * * * *
    (e) States further restricting or prohibiting the operation of 
vehicles subject to 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112 after June 1, 
1991, shall notify the FHWA within 30 days after the restriction is 
effective. The FHWA will publish the restriction in the Federal 
Register as an amendment to appendix C to this part. Failure to provide 
such notification may subject the State to a penalty pursuant to 23 
U.S.C. 141.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Section 658--National Network--Federally Designated 
Routes

0
14. Amend appendix A to part 658 as follows:
0
A. By removing the words ``[The federally-designated routes on the 
National Network consist of the Interstate System, except as noted, and

[[Page 7749]]

the following additional Federal-aid Primary highways.]'' and adding, 
in their place, the words ``[The federally-designated routes on the 
National Network consist of the Interstate System, except as noted, and 
the following additional highways.]'' in each place that they appear;
0
B. By removing the explanatory phrase ``No additional routes have been 
federally designated; STAA-dimensioned commercial vehicles may legally 
operate on all Federal-aid Primary highways under State law.'' for the 
States of Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington 
and Wyoming, and add, in its place, the words, ``No additional routes 
have been federally designated; under State law STAA-dimensioned 
commercial vehicles may legally operate on all highways which, prior to 
June 1, 1991, were designated as Federal-aid primary highways.'';
0
C. By revising the entries for ``New Mexico'' to read as follows:

                                                   New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US 56.................................  I-25 Springer...................  OK State Line.
US 60.................................  AZ State Line...................  I-25 Socorro.
US 62.................................  US 285 Carlsbad.................  Tx State Line.
US 64.................................  AZ State Line...................  NM 516 Farmington.
US 70.................................  AZ State Line...................  I-10 Lordsburg.
US 70.................................  I-10 Las Cruces.................  U.S. 54 Tularosa.
US 70.................................  US 285 Roswell..................  U.S. 84 Clovis.
NM 80.................................  AZ State Line...................  I-10 Road Forks.
US 84.................................  Tx State Line Clovis............  CO State Line.
US 87.................................  US 56 Clayton...................  Tx State Line.
US 160................................  Az State Line (Four Corners)....  CO State Line.
US 285................................  Tx State Line s. of Carlsbad....  CO State Line.
US 491................................  1-40 Gallup.....................  CO State Line.
NM 516................................  U.S. 64 Farmington..............  U.S. 550 Aztec.
US 550................................  NM 516 Aztec....................  CO State Line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B To Part 658--Grandfathered Semitrailer Lengths

0
15. Amend appendix B to Part 658 in footnotes 1, 2, and 3 by removing 
the reference ``23 CFR 658.13(h)'' and by adding in its place ``23 CFR 
658.13(g)'' each place it appears.
 [FR Doc. E7-2823 Filed 2-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P