Highway Safety: Federal and State Efforts Related to Accidents That Involve Non-Commercial Vehicles Carrying Unsecured Loads
Released: 2012-11-15T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Unsecured cargo or other debris falling from a moving vehicle can pose a serious hazard to other motorists and can lead to property damage, injuries, or fatalities (see fig. 1). Examples of unsecured-load debris that often ends up on roadways include objects such as mattresses or box springs, ladders, and furniture items.

NHTSA’s mission is to prevent motor vehicle crashes and reduce injuries, fatalities, and economic losses associated with these crashes. To carry out this mission, the agency conducts a range of activities, including setting vehicle safety standards; conducting research on a variety of safety issues; administering grant programs authorized by Congress; providing guidance and other assistance to states to help them address key safety issues, such as drunken driving and distracted driving; and collecting and analyzing data on crashes. NHTSA analyzes crash data to determine the extent of a problem and to determine what steps it should take to develop countermeasures. Regarding unsecured loads, NHTSA collects some data regarding whether a crash involved an unsecured load.

Determining the number of crashes involving unsecured loads can be a challenge because data are limited. NHTSA does track the number of crashes involving road debris. However, as mentioned previously, these data include all types of road debris, including debris resulting from human error (e.g., unsecured load) and debris that is from natural elements (e.g., a fallen tree branch). Based on available NHTSA data, such crashes comprise a small percentage of total police-reported crashes. For example, in 2010, out of a total of about 5,419,000 crashes, about 1 percent— 51,000 crashes—involved a vehicle striking an object that came off another vehicle or a non-fixed object lying in the roadway. Of these 51,000 crashes, there were almost 10,000 people injured and 440 fatalities—about 1 percent of the total number of fatalities from motor vehicle crashes in that year (32,855).

States determine what laws, if any, to apply to non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads and whether to develop prevention programs geared towards reducing crashes of non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads. State and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws.

NHTSA’s Changes to Its Collection of Data on Unsecured Loads Will Take Time to Implement

While NHTSA currently collects limited information on crashes involving unsecured loads, the agency intends to make changes to its data systems to follow Congress’s direction to distinguish road obstructions resulting from human error from those involving natural elements. NHTSA’s changes to its data systems will allow the agency to better track crashes involving unsecured loads, but NHTSA will still face challenges with collecting this information because the determination as to whether a crash involved an unsecured load is made by state law enforcement officials and can be difficult to make. Further, there are some limitations with respect to the state data collected in police crash reports, and data improvements will take time to implement.

NHTSA Plans to Collect Better Data on Unsecured Loads in Response to Congressional Direction

NHTSA collects data on crashes and fatalities that may involve both commercial and non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads in two data systems—FARS and NASS GES. (see table 1). The FARS provides a census of police-reported traffic crashes nationwide in which at least one fatality occurred. The NASS GES provides national estimates of crash statistics based on a sample of police-reported crashes. For both data systems, police crash reports, which are unique to each state, are a key source of data. NHTSA gathers this information from states and recodes it into a uniform format.

Currently, there are three data categories in these systems that track data on crashes involving road debris. However, as noted previously, these data categories do not currently distinguish between different types of roadway debris (i.e., debris resulting from natural/environmental sources versus debris resulting from human error). As a result, NHTSA cannot currently identify how many crashes involve vehicles carrying unsecured loads.

In response to the congressional direction to improve its data on unsecured-load crashes, NHTSA officials stated that they are currently making changes to the FARS and the NASS GES to collect better information and better track crashes involving unsecured loads. Specifically, NHTSA has developed changes to both systems to (1) revise two existing data categories on road debris and (2) add two new data categories. The revised and new categories will provide more specific information on unsecured-load crashes. (See appendix III for current FARS and NASS GES data category definitions and planned 2013 changes.) For example, NHTSA will now be able to distinguish between the following two types of crash scenarios that involve an object being set in motion by one vehicle and striking another vehicle, a person, or property, causing injury or damage:

Cargo, such as a mattress, being transported by one motor vehicle becomes dislodged and strikes another vehicle, a person, or property.

An object in the road, such as a tree branch, is struck by a motor vehicle and then strikes another vehicle, a person, or property.

NHTSA will also be able to distinguish between two types of crash scenarios that involve a vehicle striking an object already in the road (without striking another vehicle, a person, or property):

A motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the roadway, such as a mattress, and the object is known to have been cargo from an unsecured load.

A motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the roadway, such as a tree branch, and the object is known to have not come from a motor vehicle, or it is unknown if it came from a motor vehicle.

NHTSA officials stated that they intend to analyze this data in the future to determine whether actions are needed to address this problem. They explained that in deciding when to take actions regarding a traffic safety issue, NHTSA first tries to determine the extent of the problem by looking at counts or trends. The agency then may conduct research to better understand the problem and work toward developing countermeasures.

According to NHTSA officials, these changes will be effective in the FARS and NASS GES during the 2013 data collection year, which begins January 2013. To implement these changes, NHTSA plans to develop a 2013 coding manual between mid-August 2012 and December 5, 2012, and develop data-entry specifications by November 2012. NHTSA officials stated that they plan to train FARS analysts at the state level and NASS GES data coders on how to use the new and revised data elements in early December 2012. Public users will first have access to the 2013 data in 2014 after data collection and quality control checks are completed.

Identifying Unsecured- Load Crashes Can Be Difficult, and Data Improvements Will Take Some Time to Implement

While NHTSA’s changes to the FARS and NASS GES data systems will allow the agency to better track crashes involving unsecured loads, it still faces challenges collecting data on these crashes. Two primary factors affect NHTSA’s ability to collect this information: (1) law enforcement officials face difficulties in determining whether a crash involved an unsecured load and (2) states do not collect uniform data on unsecured loads in their police crash reports. Even with the changes that NHTSA is making in its data collection processes and procedures, the resulting data will be imprecise because it relies on state reporting of crashes and data improvements will take time to implement as acknowledged by NHTSA. NHTSA officials stated that they will make every effort to capture the data available in the source documents to provide the most accurate assessment of this safety issue.

Even though NHTSA is improving its data systems, determining whether a crash is a result of an unsecured load will remain a challenge. Several law enforcement officials we spoke with indicated that classifying a crash involving an unsecured load is difficult in some cases, because it is unclear whether the object on the road was as a result of an unsecured load or another factor. One law enforcement official explained that if an object falls from a moving vehicle and immediately hits a vehicle or a person, the crash is generally classified as an unsecured-load crash. However, if an object falls from a moving vehicle onto the road and remains on the road for some time before another vehicle subsequently strikes the object, then the crash will generally not be classified as an unsecured-load crash unless there is a witness available to report that the object originally fell off of another vehicle (see fig. 2). The official explained that identifying the first incident as an unsecured-load crash is generally easier because of a higher likelihood of witnesses at the scene who saw the crash occur and saw the unsecured-load fall from the vehicle. In the second scenario, where debris remains on the road for some time, there may be no information to explain how the object on the road ended up there. According to this official, it is up to the reporting officer to determine how to classify or describe the crash in the police report. Under NHTSA’s planned data system changes, the agency will be able to specify in their data systems crashes that involve unsecured loads if all pertinent information is available to the reporting officer. However, if the incident is not identified by the reporting officer as an unsecured-load crash in the first place, it may not be flagged as such in NHTSA’s data systems. NHTSA officials acknowledged that it can be difficult in some cases to determine if something in the road fell off a vehicle if there is no evidence available.

States do not uniformly define and report data on unsecured loads in police crash reports. NHTSA uses information from police crash reports to determine whether a crash is an unsecured-load incident or another type of incident. Some state crash reports contain a field where officers can check off a box indicating whether “unsecured loads” were a contributing factor in a crash while others rely on the officer to explain in the narrative section of the report whether the incident involving an unsecured load or other factor. NHTSA uses information from both sections of the report in developing their data. However, in some cases, information about whether a crash involved an unsecured load may not be included in the narrative portion of the police reports. According to NHTSA officials, reports on fatal crashes are more likely to have this information; however, the level of information that is included in the narrative report could vary from officer to officer. If a police crash report does not contain information indicating that a crash involved an unsecured load, then NHTSA cannot classify the crash as such.

On a voluntary basis, most states have begun collecting a similar minimum core of information in their police crash reports. These core elements are outlined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), voluntary guidelines for the implementation of uniform crash data elements.guidelines to varying degrees. One avenue for ensuring that all states collect consistent information on unsecured loads in their police crash reports would be to include unsecured-load data as a core data element in the next edition of the guidelines. NHTSA does not have independent authority to seek changes in state police reports; however, NHTSA officials stated that they will likely recommend changes to MMUCC guidelines. In order for a new data element to be added, it must be approved by the MMUCC Expert Panel, which includes representatives from NHTSA, FMCSA, the Federal Highway Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Governors Highway Safety Association, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Ford Motor Company, Emergency Medical System agencies, and local and state police agencies. Recommended changes to the guidelines can be submitted by any agency represented on the MMUCC expert panel.

According to NHTSA officials, most states follow these Any changes to the guidelines cannot be made for quite some time as MMUCC operates on a 5-year cycle. MMUCC released its revised guidelines in July 2012, and the next update is not expected until 2017. NHTSA officials explained that they would be unable to recommend changes to the guidelines until 2016, when MMUCC begins the process updating the guidelines. If changes are made to the guidelines, these changes would not go into effect until after 2017. NHTSA officials also noted that making changes to police crash reports in response to changes in the guidelines can take from 12 to 18 months. Some police agencies now use electronic police crash reports, and as a result, changes to the police crash reports could require information technology infrastructure investments to update their electronic systems. Moreover, additional training of police officers regarding how to use the new data elements would be required. NHTSA officials stated that in the interim, state FARS analysts and NASS GES data coders will communicate to law enforcement officials that information on unsecured-load crashes should be included in the narrative portion of police crash reports.

All 50 States and the District of Columbia Have Laws That Pertain to Non- Commercial Unsecured Loads, but Exemptions, Fines, and Penalties Vary

All fifty states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding unsecured loads that pertain to non-commercial vehicles. While nine states reported having no exemptions related to their statute, a majority of states and the District of Columbia reported exempting vehicles from unsecured-load statutes most commonly for roadway maintenance or agriculture activities, but these exemptions are primarily related to commercial activities. All fifty states and the District of Columbia reported having fines or penalties for violating unsecured-load statutes ranging from $10 to $5,000; fifteen of these states add the possibility of imprisonment. (See appendix IV for summary of all fifty states and the District of Columbia’s laws, exemptions, and penalties/fines.) Ten states reported having a safety or education program related to unsecured loads.

All States Have Laws Pertaining to Commercial Unsecured Loads That also Apply to Non-Commercial Vehicles, but Certain Commercial Activities Are Frequently Exempted

All fifty states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding unsecured loads that pertain to non-commercial vehicles. While the statutes vary widely, many use a common construction similar to: “No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless such vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, shifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping there from,” a statement that is oftentimes followed by exemptions as discussed below. However, a few states such as Mississippi have short statutes that contain a shortened form of this common language. Other states such as Oklahoma set forth more specific instructions in the statute directing, for example, the covering of loads to be “securely fastened so as to prevent said covering or load from becoming loose, detached or in any manner a hazard to other users of the highway.”

The state statutes on unsecured loads differ more frequently in their description of exemptions. According to our survey, 41 states and the District of Columbia have exemptions from unsecured-load laws in their statutes (see fig. 3). These exemptions most commonly applied to roadwork and agriculture. For example, the most common roadway exemption includes “vehicles applying salt or sand to gain traction” or “vehicles dropping water for cleaning or maintaining the highway.” Exemptions for commercial activities range from general wording such as “applies to all motor vehicles except those carrying agricultural loads,” to industry-specific exemptions such as “applies to all motor vehicles except logging trucks or those carrying wood, lumber, or sawmill wastes.”

Nine states reported having no exemptions to their unsecured-load statute, including Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

All states have some level of fines or penalties for violations of unsecured-load statutes. Most states have specific penalties ranging from as little as $10 to as much as $5,000; fifteen states include possible jail time. (See fig. 4.)

Two states—Nevada and New Hampshire—reported the fine as unknown, because it is imposed at the local court level and could vary widely.

Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported maximum fines of $10 to less than $500 and only two of those states—Tennessee and Colorado—add possible jail time in addition to the fine. Eight of these states have maximum fines between $10 and $100 for the first offense.

Twenty-eight states reported more severe maximum fines of $500 to $5,000 for violating unsecured-load laws and thirteen of those states—Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming—include possible jail time in addition to a fine.

The states of Illinois, Virginia, and Washington have the highest maximum fines: $2,500 for Illinois and Virginia, and $5,000 for Washington. In addition, the law enforcement officials in all of the seven states we selected for interviews stated that additional criminal charges could be brought in their state against individuals who injured or killed a person as a result of negligently securing their load in addition to the specific penalties stated in unsecured-load statutes.

Enforcement officials in some states told us that it is often difficult to write citations for unsecured-load violations. In five of the seven states, officials we interviewed noted that statutory language can be ambiguous, or require law enforcement officials either to witness the unsecured load falling or have the load actually fall to the ground to be considered a statutory violation. This language makes law enforcement respond reactively rather than proactively. All seven enforcement officials we interviewed told us they were not aware how anyone could distinguish between citations written for commercial vehicles (i.e., used for business purposes) and non-commercial vehicles (i.e., private vehicles used to move personal belongings or take trash to the local landfill for example) as written in their states. Therefore, counting violations of their states’ unsecure load laws specifically for non-commercial vehicles is not currently possible.

Some States Have Programs for Educating the Public about Unsecured Loads

Ten of the 50 states and the District of Columbia reported they have a safety or education program that pertains to unsecured loads on non- commercial vehicles. Those states include California, Illinois, Maine, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Enforcement officials in all of the seven states we selected for interviews stated that in their experience, education—teaching drivers about the importance of properly securing the load in any vehicle or trailer before driving—is the key component to reducing unsecured-load incidents. See appendix V for examples of safety education materials from North Carolina and Washington.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to NHTSA for review and comment. NHTSA provided technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of NHTSA, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and interested Congressional Committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has 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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) efforts the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has undertaken to monitor crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads and (2) existing state laws, exemptions, and punitive measures regarding non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads. For the purposes of our review, we defined unsecured load to include a load or part of a load in transit that is not properly restrained, tied down, or secured with tarps, nets, or ropes to reasonably prevent a portion from falling off. We defined non-commercial vehicles to include passenger vehicles (cars or light trucks) transported for non-commercial purposes, and the towing of loads in an open trailer behind the passenger vehicle. Light trucks included trucks of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating or less, including pickups, vans, truck- based station wagons, and utility vehicles. Open trailers included trailers that can be obtained from personal or commercial sources, such as U- Haul, but used for non-commercial purposes. NHTSA collects data on crashes involving non-commercial and commercial crashes. We obtained NHTSA’s input in developing these definitions.

To identify efforts NHTSA has undertaken to monitor crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we obtained documents from and conducted interviews with NHTSA officials to obtain information on NHTSA’s current policies, procedures, and practices for monitoring crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Specifically, we obtained information about what data on unsecured loads NHTSA currently collects; how NHTSA coordinates with state agencies on its data collection efforts; actions NHTSA has taken to date or plans to take to improve its data collection processes in response to its mandate; and challenges, if any, that NHTSA faces in improving its data on vehicles carrying unsecured loads. In addition, we conducted a literature search to identify and review relevant studies, reports, and available data on crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads and to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Finally, we analyzed NHTSA’s crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES) to identify the number of crashes in 2010 in which a vehicle struck falling or shifting cargo or an object lying in the roadway. We assessed the reliability of these data sources by, among other things, interviewing NHTSA officials and reviewing NHTSA policies and procedures for maintaining the data and verifying their accuracy. Based on this information, we determined that the data provided to us were sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes.

To identify existing state laws, exemptions, and punitive measures regarding non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we conducted a literature review of and legal research on state(s) laws, penalties, and exemptions regarding properly securing loads on non- commercial vehicles. In addition, we conducted a survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to supplement, verify, and corroborate data obtained from our legal research and to obtain additional information on penalties, enforcement actions and education and prevention efforts in each state. (The survey is reproduced in appendix II.) The survey was completed primarily by law enforcement officers in each state’s Department of Public Safety. We selected three states in which to conduct pretests: Iowa, New Mexico, and Washington. In each pretest, we provided the state police official with a copy of our draft survey, asked this individual to complete it, and then conducted an interview to discuss the clarity of each question. On the basis of the feedback from the three pretests we conducted, we made changes to the content and format of the survey questions as appropriate. We launched our survey on June 20, 2012. We received completed responses from the 51 survey respondents for a response rate of 100 percent. We reviewed survey responses for inaccuracies or omissions, analyzed the data, and have presented the key findings in this report.

We also conducted interviews with state police officials in seven states to collect information on enforcement actions and education and prevention efforts related to properly securing loads carried by non-commercial vehicles. We selected states that were (1) geographically diverse, (2) of varying sizes, and (3) varied in the types of laws related to non- commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Using these criteria, we interviewed state police officials in California, Colorado, Maryland, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. In addition, we also conducted interviews with associations and individuals active in highway safety issues, to obtain additional information on issues related to unsecured loads and efforts by states to deal with these issues. Interviewees included the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety and one of the co-authors of a 2004 study for this foundation examining the safety impacts of vehicle-related road debris;Governor’s Highway Safety Association; and the Transportation Cargo the Safety Organization. We also requested interviews with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators; these organizations replied that they did not have information on unsecured-loads issues.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to November 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and 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.

Appendix II: Survey Questions

Appendix III: Current FARS and NASS GES Data Category Definitions and Planned 2013 Changes

Data category How data category is defined currently Data categories that apply to objects set in motion, striking another vehicle, person, or property No Change.* Motor Vehicle In-Transport Strikes or is Struck by Cargo or Objects Set-in- Motion from/by Another Motor Vehicle In-Transport

Used when cargo on or parts from a motor vehicle are set in motion or an object in the road is struck by a motor vehicle and set in motion. In both cases, the cargo, parts, or object then strike another motor vehicle. Scenario A: A mattress transported by, or a hubcap from, vehicle 1 becomes dislodged and is set in motion. The mattress or hubcap flies into and strikes vehicle 2. Scenario B: Vehicle 1 hits a tree branch or a hubcap from an unknown source in the roadway, and sets it in motion striking vehicle 2.

*Although NHTSA will continue to code both scenarios A and B in the above data category, it will now distinguish between the two scenarios, using the additional data categories described below. Cargo/Vehicle Parts Set-In-Motion

Used for all set-in-motion crashes described above.

Revised: Will now be used only for scenario A (crashes where the object set in motion was originally cargo on, or parts from, a moving motor vehicle and this object strikes another vehicle, person or property causing injury or damage).

Not a current category.

New: Will be used for scenario B (crashes where the object set in motion was not originally cargo on or parts from a moving motor vehicle or it is unknown whether the object was the cargo or a part of an in- transport motor vehicle. In either case, the object strikes another motor vehicle, person or property causing injury or damage).

Data categories that apply to vehicles striking objects already in the road that may or may not have come from another vehicle Motor Vehicle in Transport Strikes an Object That Is Not Fixed

Used for crashes wherein a motor vehicle strikes any non-fixed object, such as a mattress or a tree branch, lying in the roadway. Scenario C: Vehicle hits a tree branch already in the roadway. Scenario D: Vehicle hits a mattress already in the roadway.

Revised: Will be used only for scenario C (when a motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the roadway but known to have not come from a motor vehicle, or unknown if it came from a motor vehicle).

How data category is defined currently Not a current data category.

How data category will be defined starting in 2013 New: Will be used for scenario D (when a motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the road but known to have been the cargo or part of another motor vehicle in-transport).

Appendix IV: Non-Commercial Unsecured- Load Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or Penalties or Both

Unsecured-load law Ala. Code 32-5-76

Unsecured-load law exemptions Motor vehicles carrying agricultural loads. Not more than $500.

Unsecured-load violation fines/penalties (& separate penalty statute if not contained in unsecured-load law)

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural, mining, and timber, vehicles applying salt or sand to gain traction, or public vehicles cleaning or maintaining the highway.

Not more than $1000 and litter pickup.

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural loads, cleaning or maintaining the highway or dropping sand for traction, minor pieces of agricultural materials such as leaves and stems from agricultural loads. $250–$1000.

Motor vehicles depositing sand for traction or water for cleaning or maintaining the highway. $100 Arkansas Code Annotated §5-4- 201.

Motor vehicles carrying clear water or live bird feathers. $211 ($146 fine plus $30 security fee and $35 conviction assessment) California Rules of Court; Rule 4.102, January 2010 Edition.

Motor vehicles dropping material for traction or for cleaning or maintaining the roadway. Vehicles operating entirely in a marked construction zone, vehicles involved in maintenance of public roads during snow or ice removal operations, vehicles involved in emergency operations when requested by a law enforcement agency or an emergency response authority. $150–$300 and/or 10-90 days imprisonment. C.R.S. 42-4-1701.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-271 Farming vehicles, motor vehicles dropping $117–$158. sand for traction or water for maintaining roadway.

None.

First offense not less than $10 and no more than $28.75 and for each subsequent offense, no less than $28.75 and no more than $100. $150–$250.

Motor vehicles dropping sand for the purpose of securing traction, or water or other substance sprinkled on the roadway in cleaning or maintaining the roadway.

Unsecured-load law exemptions Farming vehicles traveling locally or vehicles dropping sand for traction or water for cleaning or maintaining the road.

Unsecured-load violation fines/penalties (& separate penalty statute if not contained in unsecured-load law) $200 Fla. Stat. § 318.18, license suspension with second offense. Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this section which offense results in serious bodily injury or death to an individual within the confines of statute is also subject to fines of no more than $500 and prison for not more than 60 days; § 775.082 and § 775.083.

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural, vehicles transporting agriculture or farm products.

Up to $1000 and/or jail time not to exceed 1 year. O.C.G.A. § 17-10-3.

Agricultural vehicles, vehicles carrying birds with feathers, and vehicles carrying rocks, sand, or gravel. $250 - $1000 + suspension of license (dependent on number of offenses).

Vehicles that are government, quasi- government, their agents or employees or contractors thereof, in performance of maintenance or construction of a highway; vehicles owned by canal companies, irrigation districts, drainage districts or their boards of control, lateral ditch associations, water districts or other irrigation water delivery or management entities, or operated by any employee or agent of such an entity, performing construction, operation or maintenance of facilities; and vehicles transporting agricultural products.. $67.

Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction or water for cleaning the highway, or agricultural vehicles.

For 109: $120, Class A Misdemeanor, Illinois Supreme Court Rules, Rule 526. A conviction for this could result in a determinate sentence of imprisonment of less than one year or a fine not to exceed $2,500 for each offense or the amount specified in the offense, whichever is greater, may be imposed. Illinois Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). For 109.1: Not to exceed $250.

Motor vehicles transporting poultry or spreading sand/de-icing (removing ice).

Up to $500 Indiana Code § 34-28-5-4.

Motor vehicles carrying hay or stover (stalks and leaves, of corn); or sand for traction or water for maintaining roadway. $200 Iowa Code § 805.8A.

Unsecured-load law K.S.A. § 8-1906

Unsecured-load law exemptions Motor vehicles hauling livestock or spreading substances in highway maintenance or construction.

Unsecured-load violation fines/penalties (& separate penalty statute if not contained in unsecured-load law) Not to exceed $500 K.S.A. § 8-1901.

None.

Motor vehicles dropping sand to secure traction, or dropping a liquid substance on a highway to clean or maintain. $500 and/or 6 months jail time.

Motor vehicles carrying hay, straw, vines, cornstalks, or grain. $150–$500.

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural products and those dropping materials to provide traction or clean the highway. $500.

Motor vehicles dropping sand for the purpose of securing traction, or sprinkling of water or other substance on such a way in cleaning or maintaining the same. $50–$200.

Highway maintenance vehicles engaged in ice or snow removal. Agricultural and horticultural vehicles.

Not more than $500 and/or 90 days jail time.

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural products such as small grains, shelled corn, soybeans, or other farm produce, or vehicles dropping material for traction or cleaning.

Not more than $300 Minn. Stat. § 169.89.

Motor vehicles dropping material for traction or for cleaning or maintaining the highway.

Not more than $500 and not more than 6 months imprisonment or both. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-5-7, 63-9-11.

None.

Not to exceed $300 R.S.Mo. § 560.016.

Commercial motor vehicles in compliance with state and federal laws; agricultural vehicles; vehicles performing road maintenance or in a marked construction zone.

No more than $500 Mont. Code Anno., § 61-8-711.

None. $100 - $500 R.R.S. Neb. § 28-106.

Motor vehicles dropping materials for traction or cleaning the highway.

Fines are addressed and set by individual courts, for example in Reno it’s $403.

Local farmers, transportation of heavy scrap or crushed vehicles, or construction vehicles in a construction zone, vehicles driving at less than 30 mph.

Fines are addressed and set by individual courts.

Agricultural vehicles.

Not more than $500 for each violation.

Unsecured-load law exemptions Agricultural vehicles or those dropping sand for traction or water for cleaning the roadway.

Unsecured-load violation fines/penalties (& separate penalty statute if not contained in unsecured-load law) $100 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-401; § 66- 8-116.

None. $100 - $750 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-116 Motor vehicles dropping material for $100 N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-176. traction or cleaning the highway.

Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction or water for highway maintenance. $20.

Agricultural and garbage vehicles or those dropping sand for traction or water for cleaning the roadway. $150 - $1000 ORC Ann. 2929.28; ORC Ann. 4513.99.

Agricultural vehicles or those dropping sand for traction or water for cleaning the roadway. $5 - $500 or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. 47 Okl. St. § 17-101.

ORS § 818.300; 818.310 No exemptions for vehicles, just for certain roads, private thoroughfares. $260 ORS § 818.300(4) and ORS § 153.019. Additionally, owners or drivers are liable for all damage done as a result of the violation if it occurs on certain roadways. ORS § 818.410.

Logging and garbage trucks, the shedding or dropping of feathers or other matter from vehicles hauling live or slaughtered birds or animals, and spreading of any substance in highway maintenance or construction operations. $300–$1000.

Logging trucks or those carrying wood, lumber, or sawmill wastes. Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction or water for highway maintenance. $85, R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-41.1-4; $100 to not more than $500, R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-25-10.

Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction or water for highway maintenance. Agricultural and timber-related vehicles. $100.

None. $500 or 30 days in prison or both, S.D. Codified Laws § 22-6-2.

Vehicles carrying farm produce to the market. Vehicles which transport crushed stone, fill dirt and rock, soil, bulk sand, coal, phosphate muck, asphalt, concrete, other building materials, forest products, unfinished lumber, agricultural lime. Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction or water for highway maintenance.

No more than $50 or not more than 30 days in prison or both. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111.

State Texas

Unsecured-load law exemptions None.

Unsecured-load violation fines/penalties (& separate penalty statute if not contained in unsecured-load law) $25–$500 Tex. Transp. Code § 725.003.

Vehicles carrying dirt, sand, gravel, rock fragments, pebbles, crushed base, aggregate, any other similar material, or scrap metal. Certain agricultural loads and vehicles spreading any substance connected with highway maintenance, construction, securing traction or snow removal. $100–$250.

None. $99 –$156 § 1454.

Motor vehicles dropping material for traction or for cleaning or maintaining the highway. § 10.1-1424. Motor vehicles used exclusively for agricultural purposes, or transporting forest products, poultry, or livestock. § 46.2-1156.

Not more than $2,500 or not more than 12 months in jail for violating § 10.1- 1424, and a fine of not more than $250 for violating § 46.2-1156. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-11.

Vehicles carrying gravel, sand, and dirt if 6 inches of freeboard is maintained within the bed. Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction.

Up to $5000 or up to a year in jail or both. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.20.021.

Motor vehicles dropping material for traction or for cleaning or maintaining the highway.

Up to $500 fine or 6 months imprisonment or both. W. Va. Code § 17C-18-1.

None. $10–$200 Wis. Stat. § 348.11.

Motor vehicles spreading substance for maintaining or constructing the highway.

Up to $500 fine or 6 months imprisonment or both. Wyo. Stat. § 31- 5-1201.

Appendix V: “Secure Your Load” Educational Materials for Non-Commercial Vehicles

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia (Assistant Director), Margaret Bartlett, David Hooper, Maren McAvoy, Maria Mercado, Amy Rosewarne, Beverly Ross, Kelly Rubin, and Andrew Stavisky made key contributions to this report.