Institutional and financial analysis of weigh station performance in Georgia, final report [Oct. 2011]

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 10-19 FINAL REPORT
INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF WEIGH STATION PERFORMANCE IN GEORGIA
OFFICE OF MATERIALS AND RESEARCH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

1.Report No.: FHWA-GA-11-1019

2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: N/A

4. Title and Subtitle: Institutional and Financial Analysis of Weigh Station Performance in Georgia

5. Report Date: October 2011 6. Performing Organization Code: N/A

7. Author(s): Dr. Michael Meyer, Adam Rosbury

8. Performing Organ. Report No.: 10-19

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Georgia Tech Research Corporation Georgia Institute of Technology School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Atlanta, GA 30332-0355

10. Work Unit No.: N/A 11. Contract or Grant No.: 0009929

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Materials & Research 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2534

13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Final; July 2010 October 2011
14. Sponsoring Agency Code: N/A

15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract:
This report examines the State of Georgia's commercial vehicle oversize and overweight enforcement program over the past 10 years. An overview of the federal and state regulations for both oversize and overweight vehicles is presented, which includes state responsibilities for reporting data to the federal government. Data from states surrounding Georgia along with that from Georgia were used to assess the changes in commercial vehicle inspections and violations that occurred from 2007 to 2010. In all cases, the number of inspections and violations (reported to the federal government) has declined over this period, with Georgia showing the largest reduction of 54 percent in weight and size violations. Given the consistent reduction in inspections and violations for the states examined, the reduction of 54 percent in Georgia can be partially explained by factors that seem to be affecting each of the states (e.g., changes in truck travel due to economic conditions). However, the 54 percent reduction for Georgia is significantly higher than the average reduction for the surrounding states of 32 percent, suggesting that the reduction in Georgia is also partially explained by changes in resources allocated to the program and perhaps different administrative approaches. The report notes that the revenues obtained from the program would seem to more than cover the costs of inspection and enforcement and that Georgia should examine options to privatize some aspects of the commercial vehicle inspection program.

17. Key Words: Truck size and weight, truck enforcement, oversize and overweight trucks

18. Distribution Statement: N/A

19. Security Classification: 20. Security Classification 21. Number of Pages:

Unclassified

(of this page):

Unclassified

23

22. Price: N/A

FINAL REPORT
INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF WEIGH STATION PERFORMANCE IN GEORGIA
By Dr. Michael D. Meyer and Adam Rosbury
Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Transportation Institute/University Transportation Center
Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation
In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
October, 2011
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or of the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Truck Size and Weight Enforcement Programs 3.1 Federal Requirements 3.2 Georgia Requirements 4. Georgia Experience with Commercial Vehicle Enforcement 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 6. References

Page
iv v 1 2 7 7 8
12 16 18

iii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables Page

Table 1: Summary Table for Overweight Vehicles, Selected States

6

Table 2: Federal Commercial Vehicle Size Standards

9

Table 3: Overweight Permit Limits, Georgia

11

Table 4: Certification Data for Georgia, 2000 to 2010

14

Table 5: Inspections, Violations and Revenue for Georgia, 2007 to 2010

16

Figures

Figure 1: Input Template for USDOT Required Data

5

Figure 2: Florida Annual Report on Motor Vehicle Compliance

8

Figure 3: Georgia's State Certification Data, 2010

13

Figure 4: Change in Weight and Size Violations by State,

Based on FMCSA Data, 2007 2010

15

Figure 5: Percent Change in Weight and Size Violations by State,

Based on FMCSA Data, 2007 2010

15

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report examines the State of Georgia's commercial vehicle oversize and overweight enforcement program over the past 10 years. An overview of the federal and state regulations for both oversize and overweight vehicles is presented, which includes state responsibilities for reporting data to the federal government. Data from states surrounding Georgia along with that from Georgia were used to assess the changes in commercial vehicle inspections and violations that occurred from 2007 to 2010. In all cases, the number of inspections and violations (reported to the federal government) has declined over this period, with Georgia showing the largest reduction of 54 percent in weight and size violations. Given the consistent reduction in inspections and violations for the states examined, the reduction between the researched states of 54 percent in Georgia can be partially explained by factors that seem to be affecting each of the states (e.g., changes in truck travel due to economic conditions). However, the 54 percent reduction for Georgia is significantly higher than the average reduction for the surrounding states of 32 percent, suggesting that the reduction in Georgia is also partially explained by changes in resources allocated to the program and perhaps different administrative approaches. The report notes that the revenues obtained from the program would seem to more than cover the costs of an inspection program and recommends that Georgia should examine options to privatize some aspects of the commercial vehicle inspection program.
v

1.0 Introduction
One of the most important responsibilities of every state department of transportation (state DOT) is to protect the significant investment that has been made in a state's transportation system. Nowhere is this investment more critical to a state than in the road and bridge network, which represents the bulk of a state DOT's stewardship responsibilities. In particular, pavement and bridge deck preservation not only constitutes a significant amount of a state DOT's annual investment in the road network, but the condition of pavements and bridge decks often tie to the public perception of a state DOT's effectiveness. In addition, the federal government has established commercial vehicle weight standards for interstate highways and vehicle size (length and width) standards for roads on the National Highway System [1]. States must provide a plan and a certification of accomplishment for size and weight enforcement activities; failure to do so could result in a 10 percent reduction in federal-aid highway funds for that state. The revenues collected as part of this enforcement activity are kept by the state.
The purpose of this research project was to examine the performance of the State of Georgia's vehicle size and weight enforcement program. This research was aimed primarily at understanding how this program has changed over the past several years, and to identify any changes that could be made to the program to enhance its effectiveness. The Georgia Department of Public Safety (GDPS) received responsibility for this program from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) beginning in 2007, so it was of interest to see what if anything changed in program outcomes. Literature searches were conducted on this topic with very little found on the institutional structure and effectiveness of state programs. Three citations were returned from the Transportation Research Information System (TRIS)
1

database primarily focused on surveillance technology to enforce truck weight laws. The most recently completed report was a special report by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on commercial vehicle size and weight programs, but this was focused primarily on the question of what the impacts would be of increasing permissible loads and sizes [2].
At the outset of this research it was assumed that effectiveness of a state size and weight program would be related to the level to which illegal commercial vehicles were caught and cited. This research has shown that there is very little, if any, effort underway in the nation and in Georgia to estimate the number of non-permitted oversize or overweight commercial vehicles that are avoiding weigh stations. In addition, there is no data on commercial vehicle flows by size and weight to serve as the foundation of such an analysis.
This report is organized in the following manner. The next section (2.0) discusses the methodology used to identify what other states are doing in size and weight enforcement, and to search for data in Georgia that could be used to gauge the magnitude of commercial vehicle non-compliance. The following section (3.0) provides a background of the national and Georgia commercial vehicle size and weight programs. The next section (4.0) presents the analysis that focused on Georgia's program, in particular compared to surrounding states. The final section (5.0) makes recommendations on Georgia's commercial size and weight enforcement program.
2.0 Methodology
The research methodology for this project consisted of four major efforts. The first was a literature search that focused on both the national program as overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and then of the general literature relating to individual states' enforcement programs and to the general concept of size and weight
2

enforcement efforts. The second effort was contacting by phone and e-mail those states that were either similar to Georgia or that had some programmatic element that could be of interest to the GDOT. The states examined included: Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The third effort was interviewing officials in Georgia, including GDOT, GDPS, and FHWA. Along with these contacts, enforcement data was collected for Georgia, and an attempt was made to collect truck flow data for Georgia, especially that relating to oversize and overweight commercial vehicles. The final effort was collecting national and state-bystate data on enforcement activities (e.g., number of inspections, citations, etc.), primarily to put the Georgia data in context.
This final effort was undertaken because the initial research objective was to model the statewide movement of illegal commercial vehicles as they avoided, either through bypass routes or by moving during non-enforcement hours, enforcement activities. It became clear very quickly that the data did not exist to develop any model for such movements. Instead, it was decided to compare Georgia's enforcement statistics over time and with surrounding states to see if the results of Georgia's enforcement effort were different from what was being experienced elsewhere. Thus, for example, if the ratio of citations to number of inspections was significantly different over time in Georgia, or if citations and the number of inspections trended in one direction in Georgia but was going in another direction in surrounding states, then one could say with some certainty that a change had occurred in Georgia's enforcement program.
Using the information obtained from the internet, a phone call and email list was produced. From this list, contacts were made with the states that indicated information or
3

data was available. However, only limited information was available. A common theme throughout most states was that the responsibility of oversize/overweight (OS/OW) trucks had been shifted in recent years. Most of the state DOTs had passed the responsibility to the state safety or police agencies. As a consequence of this change, much of the data had been lost in transition, or the party responsible for keeping the data was no longer available.
It should be noted that finding data on oversize and overweight vehicles was very difficult. A national database was found through a project at the Arizona State University that provided statistics for each state as well as national numbers, but these numbers did not correspond to the numbers sent to the research team by individual states [3]. Contacting the states also proved to be very difficult, not only in finding the right individual or program office, but also in obtaining the latest data on their enforcement program. In one state, everyone contacted (and numerous program offices were) stated that they did not have such a program nor would they have (even though it is a federal requirement). In the end, this research had to rely on national statistics, on data submitted to the FHWA by the individual states and on data supplied by the GDPS.
The template used to report data to the USDOT is shown in Figure 1. Table 1 shows a summary table for the data collected by state, in this case, the southern states. In this table, the state is shown in the far left column along with the corresponding year for the data. The remaining terms in this table, excluding "Total Weight Citation Fines" and "Violation/Inspection %," are explained in further detail by Figure 1. "Total Weight Citation Fines" is found in different reports from each state; this information is not required to be submitted to the federal government. "Violation/Inspection %" is the percentage of violations to the number of commercial vehicles inspected. As is represented by the data, the
4

number of violations exceeds the number of inspections performed. This is because, from the information shown in Figure 1, citations for oversize/overweight violations may be written without an inspection of the vehicle performed. Note also that some states reported citation revenues.
FIGURE 1 Input Template for USDOT Required Data [4]
5

TABLE 1 Summary of Overweight Vehicles, Selected States

AL 2007 AL 2008 AL 2009 AL 2010 FL 2007
FL 2008

# of Inspections
2,654 1,787 1,599 1,193
14,753
17,606

FL 2009 FL 2010 A 2007

12,266 12,413 14,250

GA 2008

11,519

GA 2009 GA 2010
NC 2007
NC 2008
NC2009 NC 2010 SC 2007 SC 2008

9,296 6,653
5,200 13,123 13,662

SC2009
SC 2010
TN 2007 TN 2008 TN 2009

11,772
9,679
6,543 8,302 6,533

TN 2010

5,945

US 2007 US 2008

242,333 247,222

US 2009

221,953

US 2010

211,951

Sources: [1,5,7]

# of Violations 2,764 1,865 1,674 1,214 15,965 18,885 13,203 13,148 14,820 11,968 10,570 6,800
5,369 13,765 14,383 12,379 10,028 7,042 8,666 6,876 6,205 308,832 316,878 291,867 278,961

% of Total Violations
4.73% 22.23% 19.33% 16.68% 10.34% 36.21% 33.02% 29.21% 7.95% 36.81% 33.25% 19.77%
25.82% 28.93% 57.28% 51.76% 47.70% 24.66% 34.11% 29.03% 27.55% 6.01% 27.98% 25.67% 24.18%

# of OOS Violations
34 13 14 6 136
111
88 26 20
14
38 15

OOS Percent
1.23% 0.70% 0.84% 0.49% 0.85%
0.59%
0.67% 0.20% 0.13%
0.12%
0.36% 0.22%

0 2 2
3
0 23 34 42
20
5,563 1,645
2,040
1,164

0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
0.02%
0.00% 0.33% 0.39% 0.61%
0.32%
1.80% 0.52%
0.70%
0.42%

Total Weight Citation Fines ($)
$10,681,660.29 $10,493,369.87 $8,828,590.38 $8,499,796.20
13,109,115.10 12,861,588.71 10,270,433.24 10,845,330.24

Note in Table 1 that every state except Florida showed a decline in the number of

inspections from 2010, although not as much a decline as shown for Georgia.

It is important to note that there were many inconsistencies between national data as

submitted by states and the same data reported within state annual reports. This was

especially true with the number of inspections and citations, where the numbers reported in

6

state reports were much higher than found in the Federal Motor Carrier and Safety Administration (FMCSA) website. This is due primarily to the fact that data reported to FMCSA reflected only those where "official" inspections occurred; states often conduct their own inspections and issue citations without designated inspectors present.
The state numbers were obtained using annual reports requested through phone interviews. Florida was one of the states with the best reporting system, and Figure 2 gives an example of the data that is available in this reporting system. In this example from Florida, the number of weight citations is circled to indicate where on the form such data is reported. Most of the other states reviewed do not format the annual reports in the same manner as Florida, and it was thus difficult to determine the accuracy of the data reported. Data tables were obtained for Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee. Georgia self-reported nearly 36,000 OS/OW citations for fiscal year 2010; data reported in the FMCSA database of combined citations was 6,800.
3.0 Truck Size and Weight Enforcement Programs

3.1 Federal Requirements The federal government has established national size and weight standards for the National Highway System (NHS) and the Interstate Highway System (IHS), respectively. Federal commercial vehicle maximum weight standards on the Interstate Highway System are:

Single Axle:

20,000 pounds

Tandem Axle:

34,000 pounds

Gross Vehicle Weight:

80,000 pounds

7

FIGURE 2 Florida Annual Report on Motor Vehicle Compliance [4]
The federal commercial vehicle size limits on the National Network are shown in Table 2. Financial penalties to states are possible if weight standards are not the same as the federal limits, and legal action is possible in case of inconsistent size standards. With respect to reporting requirements, each state is required to submit to USDOT a State Enforcement Plan (SEP), which serves as a benchmark against which the actual performance of a state's enforcement program is evaluated [4]. 3.2 Georgia Requirements Georgia's weight limits for interstate highways mirror those established by the federal government, as do those in all states. The federal bridge formula is applied for weight limitations. The formula is:
8

TABLE 2 Federal Commercial Vehicle Size Standards

No federal length limit is imposed on most truck tractor-semitrailer operations on the National Network.

Overall vehicle length
Trailer length
Vehicle width Vehicle height Source: [3]

Exception: On the National Network, combination vehicles (truck tractor plus semitrailer or trailer) designed and used specifically to carry automobiles or boats in specially designed racks may not exceed a maximum overall vehicle length of 65 feet, or 75 feet, depending on the type of connection between the tractor and trailer. Federal law provides that no state may impose a length limitation of less than 48 feet (or longer if provided for by grandfather rights) on a semitrailer operating in any truck tractor-semitrailer combination on the National Network. (Note: A state may permit longer trailers to operate on its National Network highways.) Similarly, federal law provides that no state may impose a length limitation of less than 28 feet on a semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractorsemitrailer-trailer (twin-trailer) combination on the National Network. On the National Network, no state may impose a width limitation of more or less than 102 inches. Safety devices (e.g., mirrors, handholds) necessary for the safe and efficient operation of motor vehicles may not be included in the calculation of width. No federal vehicle height limit is imposed. State standards range from 13.6 feet to 14.6 feet.

W = 500(LN/N-1 + 12N + 36)
Where: W = Overall gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive axles to the
nearest 500 pounds. L = Distance in feet between the extreme of any group of two or more axles in
group under consideration. N = Number of axles in group under consideration.

9

For state routes, the maximum gross weight allowed on five axles is 80,000 pounds, on two or three axles is the product of the number of axles times 20,340 pounds, and on four axles is 70,000 pounds. For tandem trucks, the legal tandem weight is 37,340 pounds, and the legal tandem weight on tractor semi-trailer combinations on state highways is 40,680 pounds.
For Georgia interstates, NHS routes, and access roads to NHS routes, the restriction of truck and load height is 13 feet 6 inches; width is 8 feet 6 inches; and length of the standard trailer unit is 53 feet. Other restrictions apply for extendable semi-trailers exceeding 53 feet and twin trailer combinations. Similar restrictions apply for the state designated highway system (see [6]).
Overweight fines are governed by the state Department of Public Safety and currently stand at the following levels:
Zero to 1,000 pounds overweight is 0.8 cents per pound: Plus 1.5 cents per pound next 2,000 pounds overweight Plus three cents per pound next 2,000 pounds overweight Plus four cents per pound next 3,000 pounds overweight Plus five cents per pound for all excess weight over 8,000 pounds
As noted in [6], "overweight fines are assessed based on allowable weights. Overweight vehicles may be fined for either gross, tandem or axle weight violations, whichever produces the larger fine. If overweight on a permitted load, the fine is assessed at 125 percent of the rate imposed for operating without a permit. Operator may shift a load by hand to avoid an
10

overweight axle violation. All excess weight over 6,000 pounds must be off loaded. Sliding axles change configuration of vehicle and are not considered shifting of load."
Special permits can be issued for both overweight and oversize vehicles and loads. Special size permit limits include height up to 18 feet; width up to 16 feet and no limits on special permitted lengths. Oversize permits are limited by the number of axles as shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3 Overweight Permit Limits, Georgia

Number of Axles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Source: [7]

Typical Weight Allowed 23,000 pounds 46,000 pounds 80,000 pounds 92,000 pounds 100,000 pounds 125,000 pounds 148,000 pounds 150,000 pounds

11

4.0 Georgia Experience with Commercial Vehicle Enforcement
As noted earlier, every state must submit to the federal government a State Enforcement Plan that outlines the approach that will be taken to enforce weight and size regulations. In addition, the state (in Georgia's case, the state Department of Public Safety) must certify each year the actual number of inspections and violations that occur. Figure 3, for example, shows the data that was submitted for the year 2010. Table 4 shows selected data from the certification report from 2000 to 2010, and Figures 4 and 5 show the trend in violations in quantity and in percentage decrease from 2007 to 2010. The red boxed area in Figure 4 indicates the Georgia data. Table 5 shows how this decline in violations detected has affected the amount of revenues that have been collected as part of the enforcement program from 2007 to 2010.
What is clear from the data for all of the states in Figures 4 and 5 is that there has been a decline in the number of violations (that is, citations for violating weight and size regulations). For all five states' aggregate data, the decline from just over 54,000 violations in 2007 to just under 37,000 in 2010 represented a 32% reduction in violations. As shown in Figure 5, this percent reduction varied by state, with Georgia having the largest reduction in violations during this time period of 54%.
It was very difficult to determine the exact cause of the reduction in violations for all of the states noted. The current economic recession could be part of the cause given reductions in overall truck traffic. Cutbacks in state personnel in the truck enforcement programs could be another reason, certainly reflected in the data from Georgia with the number of positions filled falling from 2007 to 2010. In addition, as noted earlier, it was impossible to determine
12

Actual operations as compared with those forecasted by the plan:

Scale Types Forecasted Number Actual Number

Fixed platform scales 1,000,000

749,376

WIM scales

7,000,000

6,695,125

Portable scales

36,000

51,708

Semi-portable scales 1,000

3,176

Impacts of the process as actually applied:

Violation Type Current Year Last Year

Oversize

641

705

Overweight 35,913

36,280

Measures of activity:

(1) Vehicles weighed

Scale Type Number of Vehicles Weighed

Fixed platform scales 749,376

WIM scales

6,695,125

Portable scales

51,708

Semi-portable scales 3,176

(2) Penalties

Violation Type Number of Citations or Civil Assessments

Axle

310

Gross

5,288

Bridge formula

30,315

Number of vehicles whose loads are either shifted or offloaded Load shifting 1,856 Offloading 987

(3) Number of permits issued for overweight loads

Permit Type

Number Issued

Non-divisible trip permits

131,687

Non-divisible annual permits 15,677

Divisible trip permits

312

Divisible annual permits

203

FIGURE 3 Georgia's State Certification Data, 2010 [6]

13

TABLE 4 Certification Data for Georgia, 2000 to 2010

Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Goal- Number of Trucks Weighed
10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 11,195,000 14,055,000 5,838,170 6,056,118 6,695,125

Certification- No. Certification- No.

Trucks Weighed- Trucks Weighed-

Non-WIM

WIM

1,399,292 1,792,644 1,447,016 1,070,534 1,209,499 1,556,730 1,072,475 948,030
94,614 92,808 54,884

11,687,617 14,814,496 13,383,619 9,755,375 10,257,901 11,142,143 11,909,953 8,088,568 5,743,556 5,963,310 6,640,241

Total Number of Personnel Allocated

Over Dimensional Citations

339 339 360 354 354 354 354 351 (244 Filled) 332 (244 Filled) 335 (238 Filled) 334 (226 Filled)

2,668 2,638 1,892 845 957 988 1,332 1,414 973 705 641

Over Weight Citations
80,778 109,162 84,333 47,770 52,344 57,758 54,494 43,822 41,229 36,280 35,913

14

FIGURE 4 Change in Weight and Size Violations by State, Based on FMCSA Data, 2007 2010 [8]

Percent Decline from 2007-2010

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
0 Alabama

Georgia

Tennessee

Percent Change

FIGURE 5 Percent Change in Weight and Size Violations by State, Based on
FMCSA Data, 2007 2010 [8]

15

TABLE 5 Inspections, Violations and Revenue for Georgia, 2007 to 2010
if there are more trucks avoiding inspection sites as compared to prior periods. So, the cause
if there are more trucks avoiding inspection sites as compared to prior periods. So, the cause in the decline in inspections, violations and revenue generated could most likely be attributed to a combination of factors. However, it can be concluded that the percentage decrease in the weight and size violations was much greater for Georgia than the surrounding states.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to examine the State of Georgia's truck size and weight enforcement program over the past 10 years. It was assumed at the beginning that through modeling or with statistical analysis that it would be possible to determine how many commercial vehicles were avoiding inspection sites, and how this avoidance rate has varied from one year to the next. However, it was found that no information was available from state agencies on the propensity of trucks to avoid inspections, and none of the states contacted had such data either. Thus, it was impossible to model the avoidance phenomenon without collecting substantial amounts of data, which was beyond the scope of this project.
16

In comparing the commercial vehicle enforcement statistics from surrounding states with Georgia's, it can be concluded that all of the states have experienced a reduction in violations. However, the largest reduction among these states occurred in Georgia. One of the implications of this decline has been a reduction in the amount of revenues generated from the oversize and overweight enforcement program. The trend in the data from surrounding states suggests that there is a larger phenomenon that could help explain the reduction in violations, likely related to the change in truck traffic due to economic conditions. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything else at work in Georgia that would cause a larger reduction when compared to other states, other than the overall strategy for enforcement.
Many government programs have been facing significant challenges in maintaining staffing levels and in obtaining adequate budgets. However, the revenues generated from the commercial vehicle enforcement program would seem to be adequate to cover the cost of the enforcement activity itself. The research team contacted other states to determine if any states have privatized some portion of the inspection program, and there were examples of where the operations of the inspection sites were contracted out, but the actual citation writing was still left as the responsibility of law enforcement agencies. This is a possibility that Georgia might want to explore in terms of providing more commercial vehicle inspections if the goal is to reduce the number of overweight and oversize vehicles on the state's highway system.
17

6.0 References
1. Federal Highway Administration, "Commercial Vehicle Size and Weight Program," http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/overview/index.htm, Accessed July 23, 2011.
2. Transportation Research Board, Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths of Commercial Motor Vehicles, Special Report 267, Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002.
3. FHWA, "Enforcement of Truck Size and Weight Programs," Web document, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/v2chap7.pdf, Accessed June 20, 2011.
4. Dolan, Patrick. "Re: Tennessee Oversize and Overweight Citations." Message to Adam Rosbury. 18 August 2011. E-mail
5. USDOT: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Analysis and Information Online. http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/spRptRoadside.aspx?rpt=TEBW, Accessed June 13, 2011.
6. Frost, Jeff. "Re: Florida OS/OW figures." Message to Adam Rosbury. 22 August 2011. E-mail.
7. Georgia Department of Transportation, "Complying with Georgia Law," web document, http://www.dot.state.ga.us/doingbusiness/permits/oversize/pages/Compliance.aspx#weig ht, Accessed June 27, 2011.
8. Spurlock, Mike. "Re: GDOT Weigh Station Enforcement Data." Message to Adam Rosbury. 7 March 2011. E-mail.
18