Appendix to Part 657 - Guidelines To Be Used in Developing Enforcement Plans and Certification Evaluation
23:1.0.1.7.34.0.1.12.26 :
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.