TRUCKING FEES TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, in Room 1310, Longworth Building, at 2:30 p.m., Hon. Thomas G. Abernethy, presiding. Present: Representatives Abernethy (Acting Chairman of the Subcommittee), McMillan (Chairman of the Full Committee), Jacobs, Mikva, Link, Thomson and Smith, and Delegate Fauntroy. Also Present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; Patrict Kelly, Assistant Counsel; John Hogan, Minority Clerk, and Leonard O. Hilder, Legislative Assistant. Mr. ABERNETHY. The Subcommittee is convened to hear testimony on H.R. 9580. (The bill referred to follows:) [H.R. 9580, 92d Cong., 1st sess., by Mr. McMillan (for himself and Mr. Broyhill of Va.) on July 1, 1951] A BILL To authorize the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to enter into agreements with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland concerning the fees for the operation of certain motor vehicles Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Commissioner of the District of Columbia may enter into an interstate agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia or with the State of Maryland, or with both, which shall stipulate that any person (1) who operates in the District of Columbia and in the State which is a party to the agreement a single unit motor vehicle which has three or more axles and which is designed to unload itself; (2) who has registered that motor vehicle in the District of Columbia or in that State; and (3) who but for the agreement is required to pay the fee for an annual hauling permit prescribed by the fifth paragraph under the heading "General Expenses" in the first section of the Act of July 11, 1919 (D.C. Code, sec. 5316), and a similar fee imposed on the motor vehicle by that State; shall not be required to pay a fee described in paragraph (3) which is imposed by a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction in which the motor vehicle is registered. Mr. ABERNETHY. Without objection, I would like to present for inclusion in the record a statement from my colleague, Mr. Broyhill. (The document referred to follows.) STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing in connection with the bill H.R. 9580, of which I am pleased to be a co-sponsor. This bill will merely authorize the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to enter into reciprocal agreements with Maryland and Virginia, whereby the owners of single unit, self-unloading motor vehicles with three or more axles, operating both in the District of Columbia and in one of these neighboring states, and which but for this agree ment would be subject to a fee for a D.C. anual hauling permit as well as a similar fee in the neighboring state, will not be required to pay such a fee except in the state in which the vehicle is registered. I wish to make it clear that this refers to overweight charges or fees, rather than to license or registration fees on such vehicles. Under existing D.C. law, such self-unloading motor vehicles above a certain weight limit (which for most such vehicles is 44,000 pounds). operating in the District, must pay an annual hauling permit fee varying, according to the size of the vehicle, from $380 to $680 if the truck was in service on or after July 1, 1970; and if the vehicle was placed in service after that date, the fee is $680 per year. This fee for an annual hauling permit is in addition to the requirement that out-of-state trucks engaged in point to point hauling within the District of Columbia must also pay certain registration and license charges, the maximum for which is some $272. As far as Virginia is concerned, I understand that the District of Columbia now has a reciprocal agreement with the nearby jurisdic tions of that state whereby trucks from either jurisdiction going into the other are not required to pay the registration or license fee. Moreover, dump trucks in excess of 50,000 pounds cannot operate in Virginia, so there is no overweight fee in that state, comparable to the hauling permit fee for overweight vehicles levied in the District of Columbia. At the same time, however, a 50,000 pound such vehicle registered in Virginia, and which operates in the District, must pay the fee for a D.C. hauling permit, which as I have stated varies from $380 to $680. This, in my opinion, is not equitable as long as a similar vehicle registered in the District of Columbia can operate in Virginia without charge of any kind. The situation with respect to the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland is considerably more complicated, as I understand that there is no overweight fee as such in Maryland, but trucks of certain prescribed weight classifications are charged substantial fees for registration and license plates in Maryland, whether registered in that state or elsewhere, which run as high as approximately $900, so that in this manner overweight vehicles are taxed. However, it is my further understanding that the Commissioner of the District of Columbia, acting under authority which he has under present law, is now preparing to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Maryland with respect to these registration and licensing requirements on trucks from each jurisdiction operating in the other. If this be the case, then the overweight charge as far as it is applied by the state of Maryland on 7 I trucks from the District of Columbia will apparently be rescinded by that action. Regardless of this move, however, the fact remains that under present statutory limitations, the Commissioner of the District of Columbia cannot enter into interstate agreements whereby trucks from Virginia and Maryland will not be required to pay the very substantial fee for annual hauling permit in the District. And although as I have mentioned, this applies only in limited numbers of instances to such trucks registered in Virginia, it is a very real problem indeed for the trucking firms in nearby Maryland, who of necessity must operate to some extent in the District of Columbia, and who presently must pay the considerable fee for registration and license plates in Maryland, plus the D.C. hauling permit fee of up to $680. Again, in view of the fact that the truck registered in the District apparently can operate in Maryland without the payment of an overweight fee apart from the license plate charge, which I am told may be eliminated by a pending interstate agreement, I maintain that this situation is grossly inequitable. This proposed legislation is designed to eliminate these inequitable situations, by authorizing the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to enter in agreements with Virginia, Maryland, or both, under which motor vehicles from either jurisdiction, operating both in that state and in the District, will be required to pay any existing overweight fee only in the jurisdiction in which the vehicle is registered. Thus, trucks of that description registered in Maryland or in Virginia will pay no such hauling permit fee for operating in the District of Columbia, and in the event such a fee exists or will exist in either Virginia or Maryland, then such a truck registered in the District and operating in one or both of those states will not be assessed such an overweight fee therein. Mr. ABERNETHY. The first witness today will be Mr. Watt. Mr. WATT. I have submitted to the Chairman the Commissioner's report on this legislation. Mr. ABERNETHY. Without objection, that will be inserted in the record at this point. (The information referred to follows:) Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Commissioner of the District of Columbia has for report H.R. 9580, a bill "To authorize the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to enter into agreements with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland concerning the fees for the operation of certain motor vehicles." The bill would authorize the Commissioner to enter into an interstate agreement with Virginia or with Maryland, or with both, which would provide that any person who (1) operates a self-unloading vehicle with three or more axles in the District and the State; (2) has registered that vehicle in the District and the State; and (3) is required to pay an annual hauling fee in the District (as prescribed by D.C. Code, sec. 5-316) and a similar fee in the State-would not be required to pay a hauling fee except in the jurisdiction in which the motor vehicle is registered. The District of Columbia currently charges a special revenue-producing fee for permits to operate heavy, self-unloading trucks. Such fees are deposited in 1 the District's Highway Fund and this revenue is used for bridge and street repair and replacement. The District Government was authorized to charge such special revenue producing fees for heavy trucks by section 104 of the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-650, approved January 5, 1971). Pursuant to such Act, the District is authorized to charge annual special permit fees of $680 for large trucks placed in service after July 1, 1970, and fees, at staggered rates, depending on the size of the truck from $380 to $680 for trucks in service prior to July 1, 1970. The rationale for these fees was described in the report of the House Committee on the District of Columbia (Report No. 91-1672) on the 1970 Revenue Act as follows: "The D.C. Highway Department has advised your Committee that the most common type of self-unloading vehicle sold in the United States is generally capable of carrying a gross weight of at least 65,000 pounds on three axles. There is no doubt that this heavy weight will make it necessary to repair or replace bridge decks and streets more frequently than has heretofore been the case. Further, a road test project in illinois, conducted by the American Association of State Highway Officials, has demonstrated that a reduction in pavement life occurs from an increase in axle loading. As the loads on axles increase, the deterioration of the road surface accelerates correspondingly. "The provisions of Section 104 [of Public Law 91-650] place the financial burden of the additional maintenance and repair expense upon the principal cause by providing for a revenue-producing permit for self-unloading trucks and. as stated, requires such fees to be deposited in the Highway Fund to meet general repair and maintenance expenses.' It is estimated that 555 trucks operating in the District of Columbia will be required to obtain special hauling permits. On the basis of the registration of these trucks, the District will receive annual revenues of $347,250 from the special hauling fees. Of this amount, $243,000 would be attributable to trucks operating in the District, but registered in Maryland, $100,800 would be attributable to District-registered trucks, and $3,450 would be attributed to Virginia-registered trucks. If the District of Columbia were to enter into agreements with Maryland and Virginia, as authorized by H.R. 9580, it would lose an estimated $247,450 in annual revenue. This revenue loss would, of course, be higher if some trucks currently registered in the District were instead registered in Maryland, in order to avoid the District's permit fee. It would appear that the agreements authorized by H.R. 9580 would be contrary to the Congressional intent in enacting the District's authority to issue special hauling permits. As noted above, the permits and their related fees are designed to provide adequate revenue for use in maintaining the city's streets and bridges, necessitated by the increased wear resulting from the operation of vehicles for which the permits are issued. If the fees cannot be charged in all cases, the necessary revenue will not be available for maintenance. Under the circumstances, it might be necessary to restrict or eliminate the operation of heavier trucks in the District in order to prevent the increased deterioration of the road surfaces in the city. In the belief that the District's existing special hauling permits and fees are equitable and necessary, and in light of the foregoing considerations, the Commissioner of the District of Columbia is opposed to enactment of H.R. 9580. Sincerely yours, GRAHAM W. WATT, Assistant to the Commissioner. (For Walter E. Washington, Commissioner.) Mr. WATT. I would like to bring forward, if I may, representatives representing the Department of Highways and Traffic. Mr. ABERNETHY. That will be fine. Mr. WATT. Mr. Tom Airis, the Director of the Department; Mr. John Boynton, the Chief, Office of Business Administration; and Mr. Ralph Sheaffer, Chief, Office of Engineering. Mr. MCMILLAN. I would like to state that I introduced this bill with the understanding that this was emergency legislation because the District was about to lose some money. So I called the hearing today. If you find the bill has merit, it will receive the consideration of the Full Committee tomorrow. Mr. ABERNETHY. The Committee tomorrow will have to make the decision by unanimous consent. STATEMENT OF GRAHAM W. WATT, ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS F. AIRIS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC; JOHN BOYNTON, CHIEF, OFFICE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; AND RALPH SHEAFFER, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I have no prepared statement. If I may, I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I very quickly reviewed the experiences last year when increasingly within the District of Columbia it became obvious to all of us, both those of us in official positions and those who were in the business of construction and in the business of hauling related to construction, that with the coming of the subway, with a great deal of building construction which was under way and more that was planned, that the existing limitations on the size of trucks used for hauling in the District probably was exercising a restraining effect and a cost-inflating effect. In other words, because builders and contractors were restricted to the size of trucks and that could be used for hauling excavated material, for example, more trucks were required, it took longer, and it cost more. We found that our truck weight limits were lower than those in Maryland. Consequently, we recommended to the Committee, and the Committee and subsequently the Congress authorized an increase in the weight limits for trucks operating on the streets and highways of the District of Columbia up to 65 thousand pounds. At the same time, the Committee recognized that this increased truck weight would have a damaging or an increasingly damaging effect upon the streets, the highways and the bridges of the District of Columbia. Consequently, we recommended and the Congress approved a hauling permit fee which was designed-and the Committee report so indicates to help recover for the District a portion, not all but a portion, of the increased cost which we might anticipate in repairing streets, highways and bridges because of the heavier loads which would be hauled. This legislation was passed by the last Congress to allow the trucking industry to use the larger and the more efficient vehicles and at the same time to reimburse for the District a portion of its added cost of maintenance of streets, highways and bridges resulting from that higher truck weight limit. Mr. ABERNETHY. This went into the revenue bill last year, did it not? Mr. WATT. Yes, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. How much revenue did it add? Mr. WATT. Our estimate is that it will produce for us a total of $347,250 of revenue. I think that is significant because the result of the bill which is now before the Congress, if passed and if the Commissioner did enter into agreements as anticipated by the permissive 64-916 0-71—2 |