Transportation Safety: Federal Highway Administration Should Conduct Research to Determine Best Practices in Permitting Oversize Vehicles
Published: 2015-02-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In May 2013, a truck carrying an oversize load crashed into an interstate bridge in Washington state causing it to collapse. This crash raised issues about oversize vehicles and public safety. DOT develops regulations on vehicle size and weight, and states enforce these standards with some oversight from DOT. States also issue their own regulations on vehicle size and weight and issue permits for oversize and overweight vehicles.
The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required GAO to review the role of federal and state agencies in overseeing oversize vehicles. This report discusses (1) how DOT regulates and provides oversight of oversize vehicles and (2) how states regulate oversize vehicles.
GAO collected information from 50 states and the District of Columbia about their permitting practices; reviewed relevant federal legislation and DOT regulations and documents; and interviewed DOT and state officials from a non-generalizable sample of 10 states, chosen based on a variety of considerations, including geographic diversity and types of permitting requirements.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has established some federal vehicle size and weight requirements and oversees some state activities. Based on current legislation, FHWA has established rules and regulations for vehicle width, truck trailer length, and vehicle weight standards for certain federal-aid highways aimed at protecting highways and bridges from damage while providing a safe and efficient highway network. FHWA does not, however, have the authority to establish a height requirement, a decision that goes back to the Interstate System's construction in the 1950's, when height clearances already varied from state to state. FHWA also oversees states' processes for enforcing these standards by reviewing states' documentation of enforcement operations. However, FHWA has more limited involvement in individual states' permitting processes and requirements, which the agency considers largely a state matter. For example, it does not provide technical assistance on permitting to states.
State laws and regulations set varying size and weight limits and permitting requirements for vehicles that exceed these limits and that operate on highways and bridges. Specifically, GAO found that the vehicle size and weight limits set by state laws and regulations vary by state, although they are within the parameters of federal requirements. For example, states' length standards vary between the minimum federal standard of 48 feet and 65 feet for a semitrailer. GAO also found that permitting practices for oversize vehicles often vary by state. In some cases, states follow similar practices; for example, most states make use of online permitting systems and escort vehicles that travel with an oversize or overweight vehicle. However, other permitting practices vary by state—such as states' use of automated routing systems to provide a route for oversize vehicles. A National Transportation Safety Board investigation reported that differences among states on the various aspects of truck permitting could be a safety concern. State officials GAO interviewed did not always agree on the benefits of the various permitting practices, and some spoke of the need for more information on this topic. While FHWA is (1) conducting some research on the potential effect of changes to truck size and weight limits and (2) working with the trucking industry to update a best practices guide on escort vehicle operations, it has not studied permitting best practices across states due to lack of authority over state permitting. In GAO's prior work on improving agency performance, GAO found that identifying best practices can help identify changes that might be needed to improve performance. By conducting this type of research, FHWA would be better positioned to help states make sound decisions to improve safety and protect infrastructure.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOT conduct a study on states' oversize- and overweight-permitting practices, including automated vehicle routing and escort driver certification, to identify areas of best practice and share the results with states. DOT agreed with GAO's recommendation and provided clarifying comments, which GAO incorporated.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: On May 23, 2013, a truck carrying a permitted oversize load crashed into  the Skagit River Bridge on Interstate 5 in the State of Washington,  causing a portion of the bridge to collapse and raising questions about  permitting practices for oversize loads. A National Transportation Safety  Board (NTSB) investigation of the Skagit River bridge collapse reported  that differences among states and regions on the various aspects of truck  permitting could be a safety concern. This incident in Washington not only  injured three people but also disrupted traffic in an important freight  corridor for nearly 4 weeks while the bridge was closed. The bridge repair  cost $8.5 million in federal-aid highway funds. The Department of  Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides  about $40 billion each year to states to build, improve, and preserve the  nation’s road and bridge infrastructure through the federal-aid highway  program. DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)  also provides over $300 million each year to state and local government  agencies in grants for commercial motor vehicle safety activities.
While federal funding is provided to state and local governments to help  improve highway infrastructure and support commercial vehicle safety  activities, states own and maintain most of the nation’s highways and  bridges. As a part of that effort, states develop regulations for vehicle size  and weight to be enforced in their state (subject to certain federal limits)  and issue permits that allow motor carriers to operate oversize and  overweight vehicles, for example to deliver manufactured housing or to  move heavy construction equipment to a job site. The Joint Explanatory  Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal  Year 2014 directed GAO to review the oversight of oversize loads and the  role of federal and state agencies in that process. This report examines  (1) how DOT regulates and provides oversight of oversize vehicles and  loads on highways and bridges, and (2) how state agencies regulate  oversize vehicles and loads on highways and bridges.
To determine how DOT regulates and provides oversight of oversize  vehicles and loads on highways and bridges, we reviewed relevant  legislation, regulations, and FHWA and FMCSA program documents and  interviewed FHWA and FMCSA officials. We also interviewed  representatives from national transportation organizations and the  trucking industry, such as the American Association of State Highway and  Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Commercial Vehicle Safety  Alliance, and the Specialized Carrier and Rigging Association (SC&RA).  For context, we reviewed NTSB documents on the Interstate 5 bridge  collapse in Washington State, attended an NTSB Board meeting on the  bridge collapse, and interviewed NTSB officials and investigators who  work on highway safety. To determine how state agencies regulate  oversize vehicles and loads on highways and bridges, we reviewed  commercially available information on states’ vehicle size requirements,  developed and administered a data-collection instrument to officials from  50 states and the District of Columbia, and interviewed state officials from  a non-generalizable sample of 10 states—Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New  York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and  Wisconsin.collection instrument, which can be viewed at GAO-15-235SP. We  selected states to interview based on nationwide geographic dispersion,  state involvement in regional permitting consortiums, variations in  permitting requirements, use of online permitting, and crash and  enforcement data availability. To determine how permitting practices  could be improved, we used our prior work on key steps agencies should   This report does not contain all the results from the data- take to improve performance as criteria and compared existing practices  to those of leading organizations. Appendix I contains more detailed  information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to February 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Commercial vehicles and loads are generally of a size and weight that  allows them to freely travel on our nation’s highways; however, some are  too large or too heavy (or both) to operate on a highway without posing a  safety risk or potentially damaging highway infrastructure. A vehicle and  load is considered oversized when the vehicle and the cargo it carries  exceed the legal dimensions of length or width, as defined by federal  requirements or length, height, or width as defined by state requirements  for the state in which the vehicle will be traveling (see fig. 1). A vehicle  and load is considered overweight when the vehicle and the cargo it  carries exceed the legal weight limit as defined by federal and state  requirements.
When vehicles and loads exceed federal or state size and weight limits,  carriers are generally required to reduce the size of the load to within the  limits, if possible. Specifically, carriers must divide oversize or overweight  loads of bulk goods such as corn, gravel, or mail into smaller loads unless  they have special exceptions.overweight loads, such as sections of wind turbine towers, may receive  permits to travel on a highway, if they can be safely transported without  damaging pavements or bridges as determined by state requirements  (see fig. 2).
section_title: FHWA Has Established Some Federal Vehicle Size and Weight Requirements, Oversees State Enforcement, and Provides Some Assistance to States
paragraphs: FHWA has established some federal vehicle size and weight  requirements, collects some information on state enforcement practices,  and provides some technical assistance to states related to truck size and  weight issues.
subsections: section_title: FHWA Has Established Some Federal Size and Weight Requirements for Vehicles
paragraphs: Federal laws and FHWA regulations establish standards for vehicle width,  weight, and length on some of the nation’s highways.
Width and weight standards are set at maximums. The width  standards generally require states to allow vehicles to be up to, but  not exceed, 8 feet 6 inches wide (see fig. 4). Similarly, the weight  standards generally require states to allow vehicles to be up to, but  not exceed, 80,000 pounds in total vehicle weight. States cannot set  lower width or weight maximums when these federal standards apply.  Vehicles exceeding these width and weight standards are considered  overwide or overweight.
The federal length standards differ from the above width and weight  standards in that they do not establish a maximum overall length for a  vehicle. The length standard is a minimum standard set to ensure  interstate commerce is not impeded by a state’s requirements. The  regulation provides only that states may not require permits for  vehicles with trailers that are less than a specific length, which  depends on the type of vehicle. For example, states cannot require  trucks with a single trailer to obtain a permit for a trailer that is less  than 48 feet. However, states may allow longer vehicles or trailers to  travel without requiring a permit.
According to FHWA officials, federal length and width standards are set to  enhance interstate commerce by ensuring carriers can travel from state to  state without undue restrictions on vehicle size. Maximum width  standards are set to minimize infrastructure damage and assure safe  traffic operations, and maximum weight standards are primarily to protect  highways and bridges from damage from excessive weight and to assure  safe traffic operations.
FHWA’s federal vehicle width, length, and weight regulations apply to a  small percentage of the nation’s highways. There are approximately  4,093,000 total miles of public highways and roads in the United States,  and federal size and weight standards apply to designated highways of  national importance, as shown in figure 5. The National Network connects  cities on highways capable of safely handling larger commercial vehicles  for interstate commerce. FHWA’s vehicle size (width and length)  regulations apply to the entire 200,000 miles in the National Network,  which includes the Interstate System, while the weight regulations apply  to the 47,000-mile Interstate System, and not the larger National  Network. Also, the National Highway System (NHS)—those highways  important to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility—is supported  with improvement projects funded by almost $22 billion in federal-aid  highway funds in fiscal year 2014. The federal size and weight regulations  do not apply to about 50,000 miles of the 223,000 miles of the NHS.  Therefore, size and weight regulations are applied differently and not on  all types of federal highways. The federal size regulations apply to less  than 5 percent, and the federal weight regulations apply to a little over 1  percent, of the over 4 million miles of public highways and roads.
States can set their own size and weight standards where a federal  standard does not apply to a certain highway, which can be either more  or less restrictive than the federal standards, depending on the type of  standard. For example, while the State of Michigan follows the federal  width standard (8 feet 6 inches) for vehicles on the highways covered by  federal regulations or on special state-designated highways, on all other  highways, a truck’s width cannot exceed a more restrictive state standard  of 8 feet 0 inches. Conversely, New York is less restrictive on trailer  lengths and allows 53 feet 0 inch long trailers—five feet longer than the  minimum length states must allow on highways covered by federal  regulations.
Further, federal standards have not been established for all aspects of  vehicle size allowed on certain highways of national importance.  Specifically, Congress has not set a vehicle height requirement, nor given  FHWA the authority to do so, for any federal highway. FHWA officials said  that the decision to not have a federal height standard goes back to a  decision made in the 1950’s when the Interstate System was being  constructed and the height clearances already varied from state to state.  All states have set a maximum height at, or above, the standard semi- trailer height of 13 feet- 6 inches. In addition, while there are weight  standards for the almost 47,000 mile Interstate System, there are no  federal weight standards for the approximately 176,000 miles of highways  on the federally important NHS and 153,000 miles of the National  Network that are not on the Interstate System, as mentioned earlier. As a  result, states determine the maximum truck height, length, and weight  allowed and when a permit is required for these highways. Given these  limits in federal standards for vehicle size and weight, states have the  flexibility to set their own standards; however, as shown in the following  sections, this flexibility results in a variance from state to state.
section_title: FHWA Oversees State Enforcement and Provides Some Assistance
paragraphs: In addition to establishing size and weight standards, FHWA oversees  some state activities related to oversize and overweight vehicles and  loads. FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and Operations in  Washington, D.C., and staff in each of FHWA’s 52 Division Offices are  responsible for communicating with states on federal standards regarding  vehicle size and weight. FHWA requires states to prepare and submit an  annual Truck Size and Weight Certification (Certification) and State  Enforcement Plan. FHWA Division Offices are to review these  documents to verify that each state is enforcing vehicle size and weight  laws, and that state laws do not conflict with federal laws. Further, based  on these documents and review of the states’ size and weight  enforcement operations, the division offices are to prepare an evaluation  report for each state. If states do not provide their annual certification, or  the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) determines that a state is not  adequately enforcing all state laws on the Interstate System and other  federal-aid routes, then the Secretary can withhold 7 percent of that  state’s federal-aid highway funding while the state is given an  opportunity to come into conformity with federal regulations or appeal the  Secretary’s decision. If the state fails to certify, or the certification is  rejected and the state’s appeal process is exhausted, the Secretary is  required by law to redirect the 7 percent of the state’s federal funding  previously withheld to other states. FHWA officials stated that they and  state officials work together to correct problems with the certifications to  avoid withholding funding from states and, as a result, have not withheld  or redirected funding from any state since fiscal year 1992.
Pub. L No. 112-141, § 32801, 126 Stat. 405, 816 (2012). MAP-21 is the current  authorization act for surface transportation programs and expired at the end of fiscal year  2014. Programs and budget authority authorized by MAP-21 were extended to May 31,  2015. Pub. L. No. 113-159, § 1001(a),128 Stat. 1839, 1840 (2014). Among other things,  section 32801 of MAP-21 required DOT to conduct a comprehensive truck size and weight  limits study addressing differences in safety risks, infrastructure impacts, and the effect on  levels of enforcement between trucks operating at or within federal truck size and weight  limits and trucks legally operating in excess of federal limits. emergencies as set out in on MAP-21. Additionally, FHWA in  cooperation with the trucking industry and the Commercial Vehicle Safety  Alliance funded the development of pilot car escort and law enforcement  escort best practices guides in 2004. FHWA officials told us that they are  planning to provide staff support to update the pilot car escort best  practices guide including providing research on stakeholder-identified  priority areas, such as vehicle operations.funds administered by FHWA can be used by states in constructing some  infrastructure, such as weigh stations, to enforce weight standards.
FHWA’s policy is to provide a safe and efficient highway network that can  accommodate large vehicles, but FHWA plays a limited role in permitting  oversize and overweight vehicles for several reasons. While FHWA’s  regulations establish standards for vehicle size and weight, according to  FHWA officials, FHWA lacks the statutory authority to establish any  requirements for state permitting. According to these officials, permitting  practices are largely a state matter, and thus they do not keep records of  states’ permitting requirements or provide technical assistance on  permitting to states. Officials from the 10 states we interviewed told us  that the federal government provides them with little or no guidance on  permitting. However, state transportation agencies—through their  membership in AASHTO—have efforts under way to harmonize size and  weight requirements and conditions under which they issue oversize and  overweight vehicle permits. FHWA assists in an advisory role in this  effort. FHWA officials told us that states are now working on changes to  state administrative rules in order to harmonize requirements.
section_title: States Set Varying Vehicle Size and Weight Laws, and Issue Permits with Different Permit Requirements
paragraphs: States have varying laws and requirements that carriers must follow when  operating vehicles on highways and bridges. Specifically, we found that  states vary on vehicle size and weight laws, on state practices to issue  and enforce permits for oversize and overweight vehicles, and on other  state permitting requirements, as described below.
subsections: section_title: States Set Varying Vehicle Size and Weight Requirements
paragraphs: All 50 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) have state laws or  regulations, based on applicable federal regulations, that set size and  weight limits for vehicles operating in that state. Maximum vehicle width  and weight requirements are generally set at the federal standard (8 feet  6 inches wide and 80,000 pounds for gross vehicle weight). However,  states have varying size requirements for vehicle length and height. For  example, 37 states set 53 feet 0 inches as the maximum legal length for a  semitrailer, and length limits for the remaining 13 states and D.C. vary  from 48 feet 0 inches to 65 feet 0 inches. Further, 29 states and D.C. set  maximum vehicle height at 13 feet 6 inches, while the other 21 states  allow vehicles to be from 14 feet 0 inches to 15 feet 0 inches. (Table 1  below summarizes vehicle size and weight requirements in the 50 states  and D.C.)
According to an AASHTO representative and state officials, such  differences across states occur due to several factors, including age of  infrastructure and changes to bridge clearance requirements over time.  For example, Tennessee officials stated new bridges in Tennessee on the  NHS are designed for a minimum vertical clearance of 16 feet 6 inches,  while bridges on other routes have a minimum clearance of 14 feet 6  inches. Additionally, some standards were established in states a number  of years ago and current state DOT staff may not know why they were  established. For example, New York officials stated that a number of their  requirements have been in place for decades and that officials do not  know how they were determined, although carriers may have provided  some input.
section_title: States Issue and Enforce Permits, and Practices Differ By State
paragraphs: States also administer differing processes to issue and enforce permits  for vehicles that exceed their size and weight limits, and determine  varying requirements that permitted vehicles must follow, as described  below. Table 2 below summarizes these processes in the 50 states and  D.C.
Permit Issuing Agency: State governments issue most oversize and  overweight permits; however, some local governments may also issue  permits when carriers travel through local jurisdictions. State  Departments of Transportation are often responsible for issuing  permits. For example, states reported that state DOTs issue permits  in 31 states and D.C. Permits can also be issued by state law  enforcement, as in South Dakota, where South Dakota Highway  Patrol Officers, trained in oversize and overweight enforcement, issue  all state permits. In other states, the Department of Revenue or  Department of Motor Vehicles may be the agency to issue permits.  The number of permits issued annually varies greatly among states.  For example, Texas issued the highest number of oversize permits in  fiscal year 2013, around 400,000, while D.C. issued the fewest  oversize permits, around 2,000. Trends in the number of permits  issued vary from state to state, according to state officials we  interviewed. Officials from one state described large increases in the  number of permits issued, citing wind towers and oil industry activities  as contributing factors, while another state described fluctuation in the  number of permits issued, but no general increase.
Oversize and Overweight Permit Types: States reported offering  differing permit types that can allow oversize or overweight vehicles to  operate within a state or between states. For example, Maine has 2  types of permits, whereas Pennsylvania offers 96. Some states  differentiate between vehicle sizes to determine permit type and fees,  while others create specialty permits based on industry. For example,  Washington has a special permit type for vehicles transporting empty  apple containers, and Texas has a special permit type for water well  drilling machinery and equipment. States may also allow carriers to  apply for a regional permit that allows carriers to apply one time and  obtain permits for a trip on designated highways across multiple  states. However, the size and weight requirements for a regional  permit differ between regions, and 22 states reported that they do not  participate in any regional agreement.
Permit System: Permits may be issued by online- or manual-  permitting systems, and the type of review can differ for each system.  For example, online systems allow carriers to apply online, and some  may issue permits without review from a permitting official for certain  oversize or overweight vehicles traveling on established routes. For  manual systems, state officials process permit requests, which can  require face-to-face or phone contact. Overall, 44 states and D.C.  reported offering online applications for permits, yet not all of these  states automatically issue permits, and many such issued permits are  for specific sizes and weights or specific routes. In some cases, states  may need to work with carriers to find alternative routes in cases  when permit applications are denied. State officials and others have  varying opinions on the advantages of online permitting systems. For  example, Tennessee officials said that some form of manual  permitting was the safest option, while South Dakota officials said that  online systems improved safety by removing human clerical error.  Texas officials said that either way, they could not manually review all  permit applications, because there are too many requests. Further, in  its Accident Report on the Collapse of the Interstate 5 Skagit River  Bridge, NTSB noted that a permitting process that enables a carrier to  self-issue a permit online, without engaging the state in a technical  review, does not motivate carriers to conduct surveys of the route to  be traveled before transporting oversize loads even if a survey is  required.
Automated Routing System: Automated routing systems use  clearance databases updated by state officials to provide a route to  carriers. Twenty-three states reported they currently have automated  vehicle routing capabilities. Officials in 8 out of the 10 states  interviewed told us that automated routing systems could improve  safety by removing human error or increasing compliance; however, 4  of the 10 states we interviewed currently offer automated routing. For  example, South Dakota officials stated that their automated routing  system was a benefit because it reduces the error rate while  improving efficiency, safety, and carrier compliance. Additionally,  Maine officials told us that while they do not have the capability,  automated routing could make permit processing faster and more  error-free. Not all of the states we interviewed agreed that automated  routing would improve safety. For example, while Washington State  officials are considering the development of automated routing, they  do not see automated routing as a tool to increase safety.  Additionally, Pennsylvania officials stated a primary benefit of  automated routing systems would be ease of use for carriers.
Permit Enforcement: States enforce compliance with permitting rules  and regulations differently. For example, state officials we interviewed  said they use roadside enforcement, administrative enforcement, or  both to issue civil penalties or fines. Roadside enforcement generally  involves law enforcement officers stopping an oversize or overweight  vehicle and load to check for permits and compliance with state and  local requirements. States may focus enforcement operations at fixed  locations, such as at major border crossings or operate with mobile  enforcement units, or both. According to state officials interviewed, the  technology used in roadside enforcement can vary from yardsticks to  sophisticated laser-measuring tools. For example, Texas officials told  us that they use laser measuring systems with weigh-in-motion  detection while Nebraska state officials said they physically measure  vehicles with tape measures and traditional weight scales.  Administrative enforcement can involve a review of permit  documentation, a review of citations, or a review of carrier records  collected by the state. State officials may review their records to  identify carriers with numerous safety or permit violations. For  example, Wisconsin permit officials told us they could enforce  restrictions on repeat violators, shutting down their operation in the  state by refusing to issue permits or by suspending licenses.
Escort vehicles: Escort vehicles travel with an oversize or overweight  vehicle and load to help protect the traveling public and infrastructure.  The use of escort vehicles is widespread among states, though at  different height and width thresholds. For example, 43 states and D.C.  reported that they require escort vehicles for overheight vehicles and  loads, although what is considered an overheight vehicle and load  varies among states. All 50 states and D.C. reported that they require  escort vehicles for overwidth vehicles and loads, although the  threshold varies. Officials in 7 out of 10 states interviewed told us that  requiring escort vehicles improves safety. For example, officials from  Washington State and South Dakota said that escort vehicles improve  safety because they improve visibility of the oversize or overweight  load for other drivers. In 2004, SC&RA issued a best practices guide  for escort vehicles, with participation from FHWA, although there is  not a legal requirement that supports such a guide, according to  FHWA officials.
Escort vehicle driver certification: While the use of escort vehicles is  widespread, many states currently do not require escort vehicle  drivers to be certified. FHWA officials told us that there is no research  that shows escort vehicle driver certification is a benefit to safety.  Conversely, NTSB has previously concluded that the lack of  standardization in certification of escort vehicle drivers leaves some  drivers poorly prepared to carry out their duties and has  recommended standardized training and certification for drivers.  Thirteen states currently require such certification, which may involve  training or passing a test. Of the 10 states we reviewed, two have  such a requirement. For example, Washington State officials said that  certification is a good practice that is required in their state, but  cautioned that even with training and certification there is still the  possibility of human error. Officials from 5 states of the 10 interviewed  told us they have considered or are seeking to implement this  requirement to improve safety or ease the burden of law enforcement  officials, who may be required to escort. For example, Wisconsin  officials said they would like to implement a certification process so  that escort vehicle drivers can direct traffic. The remaining three  states are not pursuing certification. For example, South Dakota  officials said that they do not require escort vehicle drivers to be  certified, because the lack of driver certification has not been  identified as a problem.
States have established processes and determined requirements for  permitting of oversize and overweight vehicles over time. In some areas,  states follow similar practices and requirements: for example, most states  make use of online permitting systems and escort vehicles. However,  other processes and requirements differ and state officials we interviewed  did not always agree on the benefits of various practices, such as  automated routing systems and escort vehicle driver certification.
Nearly all state officials whom we spoke with told us that federal  regulations standardizing permitting were unnecessary; however, some  state officials we interviewed told us that more information on different  permitting practices and their resulting benefits would be helpful to them  to determine ways their state practices could be improved. For example,  Texas officials stated that Texas’s current permitting rules are sufficient,  but they are always looking for ways to do things better. Maine officials  told us that FHWA could help identify best practices in permitting, as  states typically have constrained resources and do not have the capacity  to conduct this type of research. We have identified key steps agencies  can take to improve agency performance; one of them includes identifying  best practices to help identify changes that might be needed to improve  performance. However, according to all the state officials we  interviewed, the federal government did not provide any or very little  guidance used in oversize and overweight permitting. FHWA officials told  us that although they collect limited information on state permitting  practices, they do not have research or data that compare state  permitting information or identify best practices due to lack of authority  over state permitting. However, FHWA has authority to conduct  transportation research, including research on issues with national  implications that could lead to improvements in highway safety, and in  the past has worked with the trucking industry and others to identify best  practices for related issues such as escort vehicles.
Our review uncovered examples of how research of state permitting to  identify best practices could better position FHWA to provide technical  assistance to states that could help inform state policy and legislative  changes needed to improve their permitting of oversize and overweight  vehicles. For example, some state officials we interviewed described the  large upfront investment of money and resources to acquire an  automated routing system as a limiting factor to their state having such a  system. Officials in South Dakota, which currently uses an automated  routing system, agreed that while their system was expensive to  implement and difficult to obtain support for, the investment has led to  benefits of improved efficiency, that the state has benefitted more than  the cost of the system, and that its use can be considered a best practice.  Also as previously mentioned, state officials we interviewed described the  varying state requirements on certification of escort vehicle drivers. Some  state officials we interviewed described how state decisions on  certification of escort vehicle drivers could increase costs to carriers, as  they have to cover the cost of certification, as well as affect the availability  of state law enforcement officers to perform other commercial vehicle  enforcement functions. By conducting this type of research, FHWA would  be better positioned to help states make sound decisions to improve  safety and protect infrastructure in a cost-effective manner.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: FHWA’s policy is to provide a safe and efficient highway system that  accommodates large vehicles, in part by regulating some aspects of  vehicle size and weight and ensuring state enforcement of federal  standards. However, FHWA has an opportunity to do more. Our review  shows that state practices in regulating and enforcing oversize and  overweight loads—in particular permitting practices—vary; further, states  lack information on how well the range of practices being used actually  work. In fact, FHWA has previously recognized the benefit in developing  and distributing best practices in this area, as shown through its prior  work with the trucking industry on an escort vehicle best practices guide.  A similar study related to state permitting practices and requirements  could help identify best practices to assist states in making decisions on  their permitting practices. However, because FHWA does not collect  information on state permitting, it is not in the best position to advise  states on practices and requirements that could improve their  performance.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve stewardship over the nation’s highways and bridges, we  recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FHWA  Administrator to take the following action:
Conduct a study on state oversize- and overweight-permitting  practices, including automated vehicle routing and escort driver  certification, to identify areas of best practice and share the results  with states.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report and the e-supplement to DOT for review  and comment. DOT concurred with our recommendation and provided  written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II. DOT also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT did not  have any comments on the e-supplement.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you  or your staff have any questions about this report please contact me at  (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) how DOT regulates and provides oversight of  oversize vehicles and loads on highways and bridges and (2) how state  agencies regulate oversize vehicles and loads on highways and bridges.  For the purposes of our review, we defined an oversize vehicle and load  to include when the vehicle and the cargo it is carrying exceeds the legal  dimensions of length, height, or width as defined by federal and state  requirements for the state in which the vehicle will be traveling. We  defined an overweight vehicle and load as any vehicle or vehicle and load  in which the vehicle and the cargo it is carrying exceed the legal  dimensions for weight as defined by federal and state requirements for  the state in which the vehicle will be traveling. The federal and state  requirements that set size and weight standards could be in legislation or  regulations. FHWA is the federal agency that oversees transportation of  oversize and overweight vehicles and loads on highways and bridges.
To determine how DOT regulates and provides oversight of oversize  vehicles and loads on highways and bridges, we reviewed relevant  legislation, obtained program documents from and conducted interviews  with FHWA and FMCSA officials to obtain information on current policies,  procedures, and practices for monitoring the transportation of oversize  and overweight vehicles and loads. Specifically, we obtained information  about what data FMCSA currently collects on oversize and overweight  loads; how FHWA coordinates with state agencies; actions FHWA has  taken in its oversight process; and challenges, if any, that FHWA faces in  improving highway safety, infrastructure preservation, and interstate  commerce in relation to oversize and overweight loads. In addition, we  conducted a literature search to identify and review relevant studies,  reports, and available data on oversize loads to gain a better  understanding of the issue.
To determine how state agencies regulate oversize vehicles and loads on  highways and bridges, we conducted a literature review of and legal  research on state laws, requirements, and restrictions on oversize and  overweight loads. In addition, we conducted an online search of federal  and state information about oversize and overweight vehicles and loads  to identify data topics to collect and compare between the states. We  reviewed commercially available information on states’ vehicle size  requirements, and then developed and administered a data-collection  instrument to officials from the 50 states and the District of Columbia in  order to verify various state permitting practices. We created an e- supplement GAO-15-235SP from this data that allows the user to  compare different combinations of selected states. The data were verified  by state officials in permitting and law enforcement. We developed the  data collection instrument to send requests via email to state officials for  verification of the data and additional information, including any data  points unavailable online. We received completed responses from the 51  respondents for a response rate of 100 percent. We reviewed responses  for inaccuracies or omissions, analyzed the data, and have presented the  key findings in this report and the full findings in the e-supplement, which  can be viewed at GAO-15-235SP.
We also conducted interviews with state officials in 10 states to collect  non-generalizable information on state permitting and enforcement  practices related to oversize and overweight loads. We selected states  that were (1) geographically diverse, (2) varied in the involvement of  different regional permitting consortiums, (3) varied in the types of  permitting requirements, (4) varied in the use of online electronic  permitting, and (5) varied in crash and enforcement data availability.  Using these criteria, we interviewed state officials from Iowa, Maine,  Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,  Washington, and Wisconsin. We used GAO’s prior work on improving  agency performance as criteria to identify key steps agencies could take  to improve state practices.
In addition, we also conducted interviews with representatives from  national transportation organizations to obtain additional information on  issues related to permitting and efforts by states to deal with these issues.  Interviewees included the American Association of State Highway and  Transportation Officials, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the  Specialized Carrier and Rigging Association, the American Trucking  Association, and the National Pilot Car Safety Institute. Additionally, to  understand the circumstances of the Interstate 5 bridge collapse in  Washington State, we reviewed the National Transportation Safety Board  (NTSB) documents, attended an NTSB Board meeting on the Interstate 5  bridge collapse, and interviewed relevant NTSB officials and  investigators.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to February 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Transportation
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Heather MacLeod (Assistant  Director), Natalie Block, Brian Chung, Dave Hooper, Les Locke, Josh  Ormond, Amy Rosewarne, Kelly Rubin, and Lorelei St. James made key  contributions to this report. Also, Alice Feldesman and John Mingus made  key contributions to the accompanying e-supplement (GAO-15-235SP).