Appendix to Part 657 - Guidelines To Be Used in Developing Enforcement Plans and Certification Evaluation

Appendix to Part 657 - Guidelines To Be Used in Developing Enforcement Plans and Certification Evaluation

A. Facilities and Equipment

1. Permanent Scales

a. Number

b. Location (a map appropriately coded is suggested)

c. Public-private (if any)

2. Weigh-in-motion (WIM)

a. Number

b. Location (notation on above map is suggested)

3. Semi-portable scales

a. Type and number

b. If used in sets, the number comprising a set

4. Portable Scales

a. Type and number

b. If used in sets, the number comprising a set

B. Resources

1. Agencies involved (i.e., highway agency, State police, motor vehicle department, etc.)

2. Personnel - numbers from respective agencies assigned to weight enforcement

3. Funding

a. Facilities

b. Personnel

C. Practices

1. Proposed schedule of operation of fixed scale locations in general terms

2. Proposed schedule of deployment of portable scale equipment in general terms

3. Proposed schedule of deployment of semi-portable equipment in general terms

4. Strategy for prevention of bypassing of fixed weighing facility location

5. Proposed action for implementation of off-loading, if applicable

D. Goals

1. Short term - the year beginning

October 1 following submission of a vehicle size and weight enforcement plan

2. Medium term - 2-4 years after submission of the enforcement plan

3. Long term - 5 years beyond the submission of the enforcement plan

4. Provision for annual review and update of vehicle size and weight enforcement plan

E. Evaluation

The evaluation of an existing plan, in comparison to goals for strengthening the enforcement program, is a difficult task, especially since there is very limited experience nationwide.

The FHWA plans to approach this objective through a continued cooperative effort with State and other enforcement agencies by gathering useful information and experience on elements of enforcement practices that produce positive results.

It is not considered practicable at this time to establish objective minimums, such as the number of vehicles to be weighed by each State, as a requirement for satisfactory compliance. However, the States will want to know as many specifics as possible about what measuring tools will be used to evaluate their annual certifications for adequacy.

The above discussion goes to the heart of the question concerning numerical criteria. The assumption that a certain number of weighings will provide a maximum or even satisfactory deterrent is not supportable. The enforcement of vehicle size and weight laws requires that vehicles be weighed but it does not logically follow that the more vehicles weighed, the more effective the enforcement program, especially if the vehicles are weighed at a limited number of fixed locations. A “numbers game” does not necessarily provide a deterrent to deliberate overloading. Consistent, vigorous enforcement activities, the certainty of apprehension and of penalty, the adequacy of the penalty, even the publicity given these factors, may be greater deterrents than the number of weighings alone.

In recognizing that all States are unique in character, there are some similarities between certain States and useful perspectives may be obtained by relating their program elements. Some comparative factors are:

1. Truck registration (excluding pickups and panels)

2. Population

3. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for trucks on FA highways

4. To total mileage of Federal-aid highways

5. Geographic location of the State

6. Annual truck miles traveled in State

7. Number of truck terminals (over 6 doors)

8. Vehicle miles of intrastate truck traffic

Quantities relating to the above items can become factors that in the aggregate are descriptive of a State's characteristics and can identify States that are similar from a trucking operation viewpoint. This is especially applicable for States within the same area.

After States with similar truck traffic operations have been identified in a regional area, another important variable must be considered: the type of weighing equipment that has been or is proposed for predominant use in the States. When data become available on the number of trucks weighed by each type of scale (fixed, portable, semi-portable, etc.) some indicators will be developed to relate one State's effort to those of other States. The measures of activity that are a part of each certification submitted will provide a basis for the development of more precise numerical criteria by which an enforcement plan and its activities can be judged for adequacy.

Previous certifications have provided information from which the following gross scale capabilities have been derived.

Potential Weighing Capacities

1. Permanent scales 60 veh/hr.

2. Weigh-in-motion scales 100 veh/hr.

3. Semi-portable scales 25 veh/hr.

4. Portable scales 3 veh/hr.

To meet the mandates of Federal and other laws regarding truck size and weight enforcement, the FHWA desires to become a resource for all States in achieving a successful exchange of useful information. Some States are more advanced in their enforcement activities. Some have special experience with portable, semi-portable, fixed, or weighing-in-motion devices. Others have operated permanent scales in combination with concentrated safety inspection programs. The FHWA is interested in information on individual State experiences in these specialized areas as part of initial plan submissions. If such information has recently been furnished to the Washington Headquarters, an appropriate cross reference should be included on the submission.

It is the policy of the FHWA to avoid red tape, and information volunteered by the States will be of assistance in meeting many needs. The ultimate goal in developing information through the evaluation process is to assemble criteria for a model enforcement program.