REVISE LOG HAULING TRUCKS' TIE-DOWN RULES; EXTEND ALLOWABLE LENGTH
House Bill 4154
Sponsor: Rep. Tom Casperson
Committee: Transportation
Complete to 2-11-03
A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 4154 AS INTRODUCED 2-5-03
House Bill 4154 would amend the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code to extend the allowable length of log hauling trucks, and revise the tie-down requirements under certain circumstances.
Currently the law specifies that the normal maximum length of a single vehicle is 40 feet, and any single bus or motor home, 45 feet. Under the bill these provisions would be retained, and in addition the bill would specify that the normal maximum length of a crib vehicle on which logs or tubular products were loaded lengthwise would be 42.5 feet. Further, the law currently specifies that certain vehicles and combinations of vehicles cannot be operated on a designated highway in excess of certain lengths. In particular the law specifies that truck and semi-trailer or trailer combinations cannot exceed 65 feet, except that a person can operate a truck and semi-trailer or trailer that does not exceed an overall length of 70 feet if it is designed and used to transport saw logs, pulpwood, and tree length poles. House Bill 4154 would retain these provisions, but specify that a crib vehicle and semi-trailer or trailer designed and used to transport saw logs or tubular products could not exceed an overall length of 75 feet. However, the bill specifies that this provision concerning length would not apply if the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration determined that funding sanctions under 23 C.F.R. 657.19 would apply, under the longer combination vehicle freeze provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
House Bill 4154 also would add a section to the code to prohibit a person from operating a crib vehicle carrying logs in which the logs were loaded lengthwise of the vehicle, unless the logs were loaded and secured as follows:
-the vehicle had sides, sideboards, or stakes; a front headboard, bulkhead, or frontgate; and a rear headboard, bulkhead, or endgate, each of which was strong enough and high enough to assure that the load would not shift or fall from the vehicle;
-the sides, sideboards, headboard, bulkhead, or front- or rear-end gate that were in direct contact with the ends of the logs did not have an aperture large enough to permit logs to pass through it;
-there were a minimum of two stakes on each side of the vehicle per tier of logs;
-vehicles with steel stakes and pockets had cross chains for each tier if the load extended more than five feet above the loading surface (however, vehicles with permanent steel gusseted bunks would not be required to have cross chains);
-three additional lights were on the upper rear of the vehicle;
-vehicles over 102 inches wide had lights placed at each stake along the longitudinal length of the vehicle; and,
-not more than one-half the diameter of the top logs extended higher than the stake tops when loaded.
House Bill 6486 specifies further that tie-downs would not be required if the following loading procedures were used:
-the distance between a tier of logs and a headboard, bulkhead, front- or rear-end gate, or another tier of logs did not allow a log to lose contact with a side stake if a log were to shift forward or backward; and,
-each tier of logs was loaded to the same height from the stake tops to prevent movement.
Finally, House Bill 4154 specifies that one tie-down assembly that met the requirements of this act and federal regulations would be required for each tier of logs under the following conditions:
-there was a distance large enough between a tier of logs and a headboard, bulkhead, front- or rear-end gate, or another tier of logs to allow a log to lose contact with a side stake if a log were to shift forward or backward; or,
-each tier of logs was not loaded to the same height from the stake tops to prevent movement.
However, the bill specifies that this subsection of the law would not apply if the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration determined that funding sanctions under 23 C.F.R. 657.19 applied, under the longer combination vehicle freeze provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
MCL 257.719 and 257.720
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.