WisDOT's 511 System. WisDOT has developed a free, publicly-available, online traffic information system. Other private systems that report real-time traffic conditions may also be available. Timely use of such systems alerts drivers to potential hazards that could jeopardize safe transport of the load. The proposed revisions to chs.
Trans 254 and
Trans 255 require that permittees check either WisDOT's 511 website or an equivalent website prior to departure.
Permit Procedure Updates and Non-Substantive Revisions. Several areas of the current Trans 254 and Trans 255 list steps or procedures that are no longer used by WisDOT when processing single and multiple trip OS/OW permits. Generally speaking, WisDOT procedures have been centralized and made electronic to the extent feasible. The proposed revisions to Trans 254 and Trans 255 reflect the current application process.
Additionally, this revision incorporates a change to language involving escort vehicles. Under current law, s.
Trans 254.16 indicates that the permittee may “be required...to provide
…2 escorts
…." [Trans 254.16 (1).] Additionally, loads 16' or wider “shall have 2 properly equipped escorts." [Trans 254.16 (2).] However, these provisions are inconsistent with WisDOT's authority and current practice. WisDOT has the authority to impose reasonable conditions on OS/OW permits under s.
348.25 (3), Stats. Section
Trans 252.03 (1) authorizes WisDOT or a local authority to require the use of one or more escort vehicles as a reasonable condition of any OS/OW permit. Under current practice, WisDOT routinely requires permittees to provide the number of escort vehicles necessary, which may or may not be 2 escorts. The proposed revisions to s.
Trans 254.16 indicate that “at least" or “a minimum of" 2 escorts will be required in certain circumstances. These revisions more closely resemble the language of the rule with s. Trans 252, s.
348.25 (3), Stats., and other laws, as well as with current practice, resulting in no measureable or meaningful change. [Wis. Stat. s.
227.135 (4).]
Summary of, and preliminary comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
The Federal Government first enacted size regulations for commercial motor vehicles (“CMVs") with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. This Act provided a maximum vehicle width of 96 inches (8 feet or 2.44 meters) on the Interstate Highway System. Subsequently, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 increased the allowable width for buses to 102 inches (8.5 feet or 2.6 meters). The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 extended the same bus width requirement of 102 inches to commercial trucks. At the same time, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 expanded the highway network (on which the Federal width provision applied) from the Interstate to the National Network of highways.
Loads exceeding these dimensions may only be transported on the National Network with an oversize permit.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 also regulated the length of CMV's. In 1982, Congress established minimum length standards for most commercial truck tractor-semitrailers and for twin trailers pulled behind a truck tractor. Congressional involvement in vehicle length reflected the desire to standardize the enforcement of length along the National Network. This standardization sought to eliminate administrative or operating confusion caused by varying State provisions governing commercial vehicle length.
Wisconsin complies with these federal requirements. This rule governs vehicles much larger than the minimum dimensions for which permits are required for operation under federal law.
There is no Federal vehicle height requirement or restriction for commercial motor vehicles. Thus, States may set their own height restrictions. Most state height limits range from 13'-6" (4.11 meters) to 14' (4.27 meters), with exceptions granted for lower clearance on particular roads.
Federal standards for construction of interstate highways set minimum vertical clearance under overhead structures (including over paved shoulders) at 16' (4.88 meters) in rural areas, and at 14' (4.27 meters) in urban areas, with allowance for extra layers of pavement. In urban areas, at least one route should have 16' (4.88-meter) clearances. Sign supports and pedestrian overpasses must be at least 17' (5.18 meters) above the road, with exceptions for some urban routes.
Not all freeways and interstate highways in Wisconsin meet these standards. Milwaukee County, in particular, has a concentration of overhead structure clearances that fail to meet these standards.
Comparison with rules in the following states
Michigan. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) permits OS/OW vehicles under single and “extended" or annual permits. OS/OW vehicles are generally permitted to operate throughout the weekend, except on Sunday evenings past 3:00 p.m. MDOT processes permit applications electronically. MDOT also maintains an online bulletin of active permit restrictions, detailing limitations on different routes due to conditions. More information on MDOT's OS/OW vehicle permitting program is available at:
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9623_26662_26679_27267_48606-182174--,00.html.
Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) issues OS/OW permits for travel over interstate highways and state trunk highways in Minnesota. MnDOT issues both single trip permits and seasonal or annual permits; like Wisconsin, Minnesota offers specific permits for types of loads, including the transport of root vegetable harvests and forest products. MnDOT OS/OW permits may be obtained online, by fax, or at MnDOT's St. Paul Central Office.
Except in the Twin Cities and Duluth and during summer weekends, loads generally do not face hours-of-operation restrictions unless noted on the permit. In these metro areas, larger oversize vehicles are not allowed to travel during morning or evening rush hours. From Memorial Day to Labor Day, no oversize vehicles may travel after 2 p.m. on Fridays and Sundays. MnDOT maintains a list of holidays with more specific travel restrictions on its website. For larger loads, MnDOT requires permit applicants to perform a pre-survey of the intended route by physically driving the route. MnDOT also maintains a traffic condition website,
http://www.511mn.org/. More information on MnDOT's OS/OW permit program is available at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/cvo/oversize/oversize.html.
Illinois. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is authorized by 625 ILCS 5/12 – 301 (the Illinois Vehicle Code) and 92 Ill. Admin. Code 554 to issue OS/OW permits on IDOT highways. In general, oversize vehicles may operate from a half hour before sunrise to a half hour after sunset, 7 days a week. Larger oversize vehicles may only operate Monday through Friday and until noon on Saturday. Hours of operation are further restricted during specific holidays and holiday weekends. Additional restrictions also apply within the City of Chicago and in Cook County. Operation on Illinois Toll Roads requires the permission of the Illinois Toll Authority.
To order an OS/OW permit, applicants are directed to use IDOT's “ITAP" online permitting system. Illinois also maintains an online map system that shows obstructions and permit restrictions throughout the states. More information on IDOT's OS/OW permit program is available at:
https://truckpermits.dot.illinois.gov/. IDOT's mapping system is available at
http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/ gai.htm?mt=tpr.
Iowa. The Iowa Department of Transportation issues OS/OW load permits for travel over interstate highways and state trunk highways. Single trip and annual permits are available, with different limitations on their use. State, county and city oversize load permits must be obtained separately. Except for a state issued All-Systems Permit authorized by a participating county or city, state-issued permits are not valid on county and city highways. County and city permits are also not valid on state highways.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies used and how the related findings support the regulatory approach chosen
See Fiscal Estimate.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small businesses
See Fiscal Estimate.
Effect on Small Business
Positive.
Fiscal Effect
None for government.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
None.
Agency Contact Person and Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until close of business the day of the hearing to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at the hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to:
Kathleen Nichols
Motor Carrier Services Section, Division of Motor Vehicles
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 151
P. O. Box 7980,
Madison, WI 53707-7980.
Phone: (608) 261-2574
E-mail:
Kathleen.Nichols@dot.wi.gov.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original
⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Ch. Trans 254 Single Trip Permits for Oversize or Overweight Vehicles or Loads
Ch. Trans 255 Multiple Trip Permits for Oversize or Overweight Vehicles or Loads
|
3. Subject
|
Credential authorizing vehicles exceeding legal size and weight limits
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED
⍽ PRO
⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG
⍽ SEG-S
|
N/A
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Cost
|
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
X State's Economy
X Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
X Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
|
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No, implementation costs will be outreach efforts.
|
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
|
Current rule impedes motor carriers ability to meet contractual obligations.
|
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
|
WI AGC, Milwaukee AGC, WI Motor Carriers Assn., WI Manufacturers, Commerce, WI Transportation Builders
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
City of Milwaukee; Brown, Columbia, Dane, Eau Claire, Milwaukee, and Waukesha Counties
|
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
No negative impact expected to business or local governments. It is an effort to remove outdated restrictions that are no longer needed to maintain roadway safety for other users of the state and local roads.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
Improving transport efficiency; reducing construction costs; responding to industry request to continue with over-ride practices.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Improving cross-border motor carrier regulation; Commerce should be more cost efficient.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
N/A
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
Bringing WI operating hours closer to those of Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Kathleen Nichols, Permit Chief
|
608-261-2572
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
ATTACHMENT A
|
1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
The economic and fiscal assessment activity done by the Department after the Scope Statement was published shows that that there will be no negative economic or fiscal impact on small business. Businesses will experience significant relief from costs arising from route and time of operation limits in the current language of Chapter Trans 254 and 255. Polled companies estimate that current rule language results in a $5 per mile additional transport cost, especially for companies that are located in or near Milwaukee County. In addition, delay in delivery that may arise from current rule provisions can result in $2,000 to $5,000 per hour additional costs arising from idle cranes, workers, and liquidated damages.
Small businesses should experience no new costs to comply with Chapter Trans 254 or 255 as a result of amendments as proposed for this rule-making. The Department will be required to re-print a number of documents, and that cost will be absorbed within the agency's budget.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
The Division of Transportation System Development of at the DOT contracted with CMQue, a sub-contractor of Cambridge Systematics, Inc., to interview selected small businesses likely to be affected by the amendment of Chapter Trans 254 and 255. The firms selected were companies that rent or lease heavy specialized equipment or manufacture goods of a size or weight that will require an oversize/overweight permit and a Wisconsin-based specialized motor carrier that frequently orders trucking permits from the Department.
In addition, staff of the Department polled the motor carrier members of the Motor Carrier Advisory Committee – OSOW Subcommittee, most of the members of which are small businesses.
Finally, the interest groups identified earlier in this submission, which represent small businesses, were asked to evaluate the likely effect of the proposed changes. All support the direction of these proposed amendments to Chapter Trans 254 and 255.
|
3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?
|
⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements
⍽ Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting
⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements
⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards
⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements
X Other, describe:
Since it is anticipated that the impact on Small Businesses will be positive, these methods were not considered.
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
The proposed amendments will increase the number of hours and days during which oversize/overweight goods may be transported in Wisconsin, and will bring Wisconsin into closer conformity with Minnesota and Iowa travel hours and days. The modest increases in vehicle size that will be allowed on the Milwaukee Expressway will reduce miles travelled and congestion caused by very large and heavy vehicles operating on surface streets.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
No change in enforcement of the permits issued under the auspices of Chapter Trans 254 or 255 is anticipated. Wisconsin State Patrol, the primary enforcement agency for commercial motor carriage will apprise its personnel after promulgation of the amended rules. The Motor Carrier Services Section of the Division of Motor Vehicle will widely promote the new, less-restrictive, rules.
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes X No
|
