Pleasant Trucking, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

Citations: 636 A.2d 1284; 161 Pa. Commw. 343; 1994 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 16

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; January 11, 1994; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Pleasant Trucking, Inc. appeals a decision from the Secretary of Transportation affirming a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Department) hearing officer's denial of its application for access to certain highway routes for 102-inch wide trailers. Pleasant Trucking, based in Connellsville, Pennsylvania, sought access from Pennsylvania Route 982 at U.S. Route 119 to State Route 31, ultimately connecting to the Pennsylvania Turnpike at Donegal Interchange. The Department denied the request on August 20, 1991, citing safety concerns due to truck accidents on the mountain routes, with similar requests previously denied for other trucking companies.

Key facts include that Pleasant Trucking has no terminals or customers on the requested routes but operates six to eight trucks daily on U.S. Route 119 to the Turnpike. The proposed Route 982 is 14.2 miles long, featuring two lanes each 11 feet wide with variable shoulder widths. Route 31, particularly the Three Mile Hill segment, includes three traffic lanes and a challenging grade with several curves, requiring trucks to stop at a designated area before proceeding. The current route to the Turnpike is 29.5 miles and takes approximately 34 minutes, compared to the proposed route, which would take 25 minutes. The appeal was ultimately denied.

Access routes for 102-inch wide trailers are evaluated by the Department based on various factors including road and shoulder width, highway conditions, accident history, traffic volume, alternate routes, and specific restrictions like height and bridge limits. Over the past five years, there were seven accidents involving tractor-trailers on Three Mile Hill, with five attributed to large trucks, three of which were off-road incidents. One accident on Route 982 involved a flatbed trailer sideswiping another vehicle.

The Department’s Engineering District 12 denied access for several reasons: 8% of accidents on Three Mile Hill involved large trucks, prior knowledge of truck-related issues on mountain roads, previous denials to other truckers on the same route, and the existence of a safer alternate route. Safety comparisons indicated that Route 119 and the Turnpike, both limited access highways, are significantly safer than Routes 982 and 31, which have steep grades and curves leading to populated areas.

The hearing officer determined that the federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) and its regulations govern access decisions for STAA vehicles and concluded that the Department did not abuse its discretion in denying Pleasant Trucking's access request. Pleasant Trucking's subsequent exceptions were denied by the Secretary, affirming the denial. On appeal, Pleasant Trucking raises four issues: the applicability of 67 Pa.Code. 209.3 regarding deemed approval due to inaction, potential violations of federal regulations, claims of abuse of discretion due to lack of consideration for economic impacts on local businesses, and whether the denial is supported by substantial evidence.

Pleasant Trucking asserts that its request for access is automatically approved under 67 Pa. Code 209.3 due to the Department's failure to respond within the required 90-day period after the application submission. Chapter 209 outlines the protocol for access requests to the highway network, stating that applications must be approved, denied, or responded to with restrictions within 30 days, with a maximum review period of 90 days. If the Department or relevant municipal authority does not respond within this timeframe, the request is deemed approved. However, the Department disputes this claim, arguing that Chapter 209 does not apply to requests for operating combinations exceeding the width limits set by the Vehicle Code, specifically 75 Pa.C.S. 4921. Pleasant Trucking also references federal regulations under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), which mandate automatic approval for access requests not acted upon within 90 days, effective within 12 months of the rule's introduction. Additionally, states were required to submit their access provisions to the Federal Highway Administration for approval by June 1, 1990, and non-compliance would necessitate adherence to federal criteria for STAA-dimensioned vehicles.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may grant a time extension for a state's compliance with federal regulations if requested at least one month before the one-year deadline. Pleasant Trucking asserts that the Commonwealth was required to either adopt compliant regulations by December 1, 1990, or request an extension by May 1, 1991. Pleasant Trucking argues that the 90-day deemed approval rule took effect on May 1, 1991, as the Commonwealth did not submit its regulations by the deadline. According to legal precedent, federal regulations do not apply retroactively unless explicitly stated. The regulations in question became effective on June 1, 1990, and the ninety-day deemed approval provision specifically states it would take effect no later than June 1, 1991, unless an extension was requested. Therefore, since the Commonwealth did not request an extension, the provision was not in effect when Pleasant Trucking sought access, and their request could not be deemed approved due to a lack of decision within ninety days.

Pleasant Trucking also contends that the Department disregarded the economic impact of denying access, but does not cite any legal authority to support this claim. While the court recognizes the importance of economic health, decisions must adhere to legal standards, which do not mandate consideration of economic impact in access requests. The regulations require a focus on safety and engineering analysis, particularly concerning route characteristics and deficiencies. Pleasant Trucking has an existing safe access route and admits it has no terminals or customers on the requested route, indicating the request is for a more economical option rather than a necessity. Given the safety concerns and the availability of an access route to the National Network, the Department acted within its discretion by not considering economic factors in the decision.

Pleasant Trucking's request for access was denied by the Department, a decision supported by substantial evidence. The hearing officer confirmed that the proposed access route features sharp curves, narrow lanes, unpaved shoulders, and steep downgrades. A video submitted by Pleasant Trucking, while demonstrating the safe navigation of a 102-inch wide trailer on the route, also highlighted the hazardous characteristics of the roadway. Consequently, the Secretary's order, which upheld the hearing officer’s decision to deny Pleasant Trucking’s request, was affirmed. The document also references the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), which mandates reasonable access for commercial STAA vehicles to primary highways and facilities. States have the authority to set provisions for this access, as outlined in federal regulations. The definition of "terminal" includes locations where freight is handled or where commercial carriers maintain facilities. The court's review is confined to constitutional violations, legal errors, or unsupported factual findings. Relevant Pennsylvania regulations allow for reasonable access to highways for specific vehicle combinations, provided such access is safe and reasonable.