WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1407

An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in certification of teachers, further providing for instructional certificate grade spans and age levels and duties of department and providing for instructional certificate grade spans and age levels; and abrogating a regulation .

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Aerion Abney and 18 co-sponsors

HB 1407 would raise interstate heavy-vehicle weight caps (and some non-interstate limits) while preserving the Federal Bridge Formula, prompting local road reviews.

Referred to Education
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1407

Summary — HB 1407 (North Dakota)

An Act to amend and reenact subsection 2 of section 39‑12‑05 and subsection 2 of section 39‑12‑05.3 of the North Dakota Century Code — changes to vehicle weight limits for the interstate system and for non‑interstate highways.

Main purpose

HB 1407 would revise statutory weight‑limit provisions for multi‑axle vehicles in North Dakota. The bill keeps the federal‑style axle spacing formula but changes the statutory caps on gross vehicle or axle‑group weights for the interstate system and for highways that are not part of the interstate system. It also encourages local authorities to evaluate roads and designate higher weight limits where appropriate.

Key provisions

  • Retains the Federal Bridge Formula (expressed in statute) used to compute maximum gross weight for groups of more than one axle:
    • W = 500 × (L N / (N − 1) + 12 N + 36)
    • where W = maximum weight (pounds) on any group of more than one axle; L = distance (feet) between extremes of the group; N = number of axles.
  • Preserves an allowance that two consecutive tandem axle sets may each carry 34,000 pounds provided the overall distance between first and last axles is at least 36 feet.
  • Changes the statutory maximum gross weight on the interstate system from the longstanding 80,000‑pound cap to a higher numeric cap in the draft text (the draft contains multiple numeric figures including “one hundred thirteen thousand pounds” and other garbled numerics). The bill text as circulated contains inconsistent numeric and metric conversions; the intended new pound limits are not unambiguously presented in the available draft.
  • For highways not on the interstate system, the draft raises the allowable gross weight on “state highways” to a higher cap (draft text references “one hundred five thousand five hundred” pounds and also includes references to “one hundred thirteen thousand” pounds in other places). It preserves an 80,000‑pound default maximum for “all other highways” unless local authorities designate higher limits.
  • Encourages local authorities to assess roads and designate appropriate weight limits under their jurisdiction.

Who would be affected

  • Commercial trucking and freight carriers (potentially able to operate heavier loads where authorized)
  • Local and state transportation agencies (road assessment, permitting, signage)
  • Law enforcement (weight enforcement and permitting)
  • Road and bridge maintenance budgets — heavier allowable loads can accelerate wear
  • Local governments (authority and responsibility to designate higher limits)

Potential impacts

  • Infrastructure: Increased pavement and bridge loading where higher limits are allowed; potential need for more frequent maintenance or upgrades.
  • Fiscal: Possible increases in permit revenue; potential higher maintenance costs for state and local governments. The bill does not include appropriations.
  • Regulatory: Requires local assessment and designation processes; may increase permit or routing complexity.

Procedural history / current status

  • Introduced: November 19, 2024 (Sixty‑ninth Legislative Assembly, sponsors include Representatives Brandenburg, Grueneich, Headland, Nehring and Senators Luick, Myrdal, Thomas, Wanzek, Conley).
  • Committee consideration, public hearings, and multiple calendar actions occurred in 2025.
  • Most recent status reported: Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 7, nays 86).

Notes and caveats

  • The circulating bill text contains multiple inconsistent and garbled numeric references and metric conversions (e.g., overlapping references to 80,000; 105,500; 113,000 pounds and mismatched kilogram conversions). Because of these inconsistencies, the precise numeric caps that the bill intends to impose are unclear from the available draft. Any review or implementation should rely on a corrected, authoritative engrossed/enrolled version of the bill.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.