Motor carrier classes by state
Arizona keeps two weight lines for the same truck and puts six thousand pounds between them. Financial responsibility attaches at a declared gross weight above twenty thousand pounds. The definition that decides whether the state calls your rig a commercial motor vehicle for safety purposes begins at twenty-six thousand and one. A loaded one-ton and a gooseneck sit in the band between, owing insurance under one statute while sitting under the threshold of the other.
The parts of light-combination and expedited freight that behave the same everywhere — the tight window, the mixed securement duty, the single load whose value runs far past the cargo limit written for an average one — belong to the class rather than to Arizona, and they are set out on the hot shot trucking insurance page rather than repeated here.
Arizona’s own contribution is a split. Two different chapters of Title 28, administered on two different statutory theories, reach the same combination at two different weights. Neither chapter mentions the other. Neither one is wrong. An operator who reads only the one an enforcement officer quotes at roadside will conclude the state has nothing to say about a truck under twenty-six thousand pounds, and will be mistaken about the half of Arizona law that costs money.
It is worth naming what Arizona does not have, because the absence shapes the file as much as the text does. There is no economic operating authority for motor carriers in this state — no certificate, no permit, no commission that grants the right to haul freight for money. There is also no cargo insurance requirement and no cargo filing. Both of those are established below by reading the articles that would contain them, not by assuming.
Every figure below is attributed to the section that sets it, in the words that section uses. Where Arizona’s own drafting is inconsistent — and in one place on this page it plainly is — the inconsistency is reported rather than smoothed over, because an operator has to plan against the text that exists.
Running Arizona intrastate on a combination that scales somewhere between twenty and twenty-six thousand pounds? That band owes a state financial-responsibility minimum while sitting below the state’s safety definition, and the number on your registration is what decides it.
Send the declared gross weight from the registration, not the door-jamb rating, and tell us whether anything you haul is ever placarded. Those two answers settle which Arizona statutes are live before any coverage question is reached.
Start with the safety side, because it is the number most operators have heard. A.R.S. 28-5201 defines “commercial motor vehicle” for the whole of the motor carrier safety chapter as a vehicle or combination “designed, used or maintained to transport passengers or property in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise on a highway in this state, that is not exempt from the gross weight fees as prescribed in section 28-5432, subsection B” and that meets one of six descriptions. The first of those, at subdivision (1)(a), is “A single vehicle or combination of vehicles that has either a gross vehicle weight rating or a gross weight of twenty-six thousand one or more pounds, whichever is greater, and that is used for the purposes of intrastate commerce.”
Read against a truck-and-trailer combination doing paid work entirely inside Arizona and staying under that figure, the conclusion is straightforward and uncomfortable for anyone who stops reading there: the combination is not an intrastate commercial motor vehicle within the meaning of that chapter, so the chapter’s applicability section does not reach it. The very next subdivision, (1)(b), sets a different and much lower number for interstate operation, which is why the same rig can be inside the definition on Monday and outside it on Tuesday with nothing changing but the destination.
Now the money side. A.R.S. 28-4032(A)(1) sits in a different chapter and opens with a phrase that does the work: “Notwithstanding any other statute: 1. A person who operates in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise in this state a motor vehicle or vehicle combination that has a declared gross weight of more than twenty thousand pounds shall comply with the financial responsibility requirements of this article and article 4 of this chapter.”
Twenty thousand and one pounds, declared, in furtherance of a commercial enterprise. That is six thousand pounds below the safety definition, and it is the point at which Arizona first requires anything of this operator that costs money. The two lines do not contradict each other because the financial-responsibility statute expressly insulates itself from every other statute in the code, including the safety chapter’s own definitions. They simply answer different questions, and only one of them is about whether you may be inspected.
For a light combination the practical shape is this. Below twenty thousand and one pounds declared, Arizona asks nothing of a general-freight operator beyond what it asks of any registered vehicle. Between twenty thousand and one and twenty-six thousand, the state has a stated minimum limit but no safety definition. Above twenty-six thousand, both are live at once. Most of this work lives in the middle band, which is the band with the least reading behind it.
The amount is not left to an agency. A.R.S. 28-4033(A) requires a person subject to the article to “maintain motor vehicle combined single limit liability insurance” and then lays out a ladder. For nonhazardous property, subdivision (A)(1)(b) reads: “For a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of twenty thousand one pounds to twenty-six thousand pounds, minimum coverage in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars.” Subdivision (A)(1)(a), immediately above it, sets seven hundred fifty thousand dollars for a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of more than twenty-six thousand pounds.
Two things about that ladder matter to a light combination. The first is that the step is large and it is a step, not a slope — there is nothing between the two rungs. A combination that gains a few hundred pounds of declared weight crossing twenty-six thousand does not move gradually; it moves from one stated minimum to a figure two and a half times larger. On equipment where a heavier trailer is a purchase rather than a rebuild, that is a decision an operator can make by accident.
The second is that the statute writes “combined single limit.” It is not a split-limit table, and it is not a schedule of separate bodily-injury and property-damage numbers. That has a direct consequence when a shipper contract asks for particular per-person and per-occurrence figures: the state’s requirement and the contract’s requirement are expressed in different currencies, and satisfying one says nothing about satisfying the other.
Hazardous carriage moves the whole analysis. A.R.S. 28-4032(A)(2) adds a limb with no weight floor at all: a person who operates a vehicle or combination “for the purpose of transporting hazardous materials, hazardous substances or hazardous wastes as defined by the department” is subject to the article regardless of what the rig weighs, unless the carriage is incidental to the principal purpose of the travel, or is not in furtherance of a commercial enterprise, or falls under the quantity carve-out in subdivision (c) — “less than one thousand pounds or not more than one hundred ten gallons for a combustible liquid” of a material listed in the 49 C.F.R. 172.504(a) table two. For an operator who occasionally moves a placarded load, the Arizona weight question disappears entirely.
The ladder continues into hazardous classes at five million dollars and one million dollars depending on the material and the packaging, and into a separate passenger ladder keyed to seating capacity. Neither reaches general freight, and both are set out in the same section for anyone whose work crosses into them.
This is the place where Arizona’s drafting is genuinely inconsistent, and an operator planning a fleet needs to know it rather than be reassured about it.
The statute that decides whether you are subject keys on declared gross weight. A.R.S. 28-4032(A)(1) says “a declared gross weight of more than twenty thousand pounds.” The statute that decides how much you must carry keys on something else. A.R.S. 28-4033(A)(1)(b) says “a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of twenty thousand one pounds to twenty-six thousand pounds.” Declared gross weight and gross vehicle weight are separately defined terms; 28-5201(2) provides that “‘Declared gross weight’ has the same meaning prescribed in section 28-5431. If a declaration has not been made, declared gross weight means gross weight.”
That fallback sentence tells you the two are not the same thing, because a rule that says one term collapses into the other only when a declaration is missing is a rule that expects them to differ when a declaration exists. On a combination whose declared weight was chosen at registration and whose actual gross weight varies with the load, the trigger and the amount can be read off two different numbers on the same day.
This page flags that rather than resolving it. No Arizona interpretive authority reconciling the two terms in these sections was located. The operational discipline that follows is not complicated: know both numbers, and if either one crosses a line in the ladder, plan against the higher requirement rather than arguing about which term controls.
There is a second reason the declared figure deserves attention. It is a number the operator elected, it appears on the registration document, and it is the number a state officer can read without weighing anything. Whatever the eventual construction, the declared weight is the fastest route to a finding that a carrier was in the wrong band.
Send the declared gross weight from the registration, the heaviest combination actually run, the radius distribution, and whether anything placarded ever moves. Those four answers settle which Arizona statutes are live before a single coverage question is reached.
Operators arriving from states with a certificate regime look for the Arizona equivalent and do not find one, and the reason is a one-sentence statute. A.R.S. 40-206 is captioned “Exemption of motor carriers” and reads, in its entirety: “This chapter does not apply to motor carriers as defined in section 28-5851.”
The definition it imports is at A.R.S. 28-5851, which opens with its own scoping hedge — “In this article, unless the context otherwise requires” — and then provides at paragraph 3 that “‘Motor carrier’ means a person who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle on a public highway,” and at paragraph 4 that “‘Motor vehicle’ means a self-propelled motor driven vehicle that has a declared gross vehicle weight of more than twelve thousand pounds and that is subject to vehicle registration before lawful operation on the public highways in this state, excluding a motor vehicle that is exempt from gross weight fees pursuant to section 28-5432.”
So the exemption that pushes motor carriers out of Corporation Commission jurisdiction is written by reference to definitions that live in the motor carrier fee article, and it carries a twelve thousand and one pound line of its own. That line is a fee and registration boundary rather than a grant of operating authority, and this page treats it as such — but it is recorded here because it is a real Arizona number that a reader will encounter, and because it is the only place in the analysis where twelve thousand pounds appears.
The negative that follows was established by enumeration rather than assumed. The Title 28 chapter and article index was read in full: the motor carrier chapter is Chapter 14, Motor Carrier Safety, running from 28-5201 to 28-5244, comprising Article 1 General Provisions and Article 2 Regulation, and all seventeen section titles were read. Not one is a certificate, permit or operating-authority provision. The Title 40 index was likewise read in full, and the only motor carrier entry it contains is 40-206 — the exemption itself. Administration of registration and the financial-responsibility filing sits with the Arizona Department of Transportation; administration of motor carrier safety sits with that department and the Department of Public Safety under A.R.S. 28-5204.
The practical result is that there is no Arizona application to file, no fitness finding to obtain, and no state file that says a carrier is authorized. Whatever an underwriter learns about an Arizona intrastate operation’s standing has to come from somewhere other than a state certificate, because none exists.
The mechanics live in a separate article of the administrative code, and the article is easy to miss because the safety rules sit in Article 2 and this sits in Article 5. A.A.C. R17-5-504(A) provides that a person or motor carrier subject to A.R.S. 28-4032 who does not insure through a company that reports electronically to the department “shall submit proof of financial responsibility as prescribed in this Section, and in the amount required under A.R.S. § 28-4033(A): 1. On initial motor vehicle registration, or 2. On written request by the Department.”
Two timing points fall out of that. The filing is not a continuous monthly obligation that a lapse notice interrupts; it is an event at registration and a duty to respond when asked. And the electronic-reporting route means many operators never file anything at all, because their insurer reports for them — which is convenient right up to the moment the department writes and asks, at which point the carrier has to produce something.
What counts as proof is a short and specific list: a photocopy of a valid liability policy; a binder dated within ninety days of filing; a completed and signed Form E Uniform Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance naming the Arizona Department of Transportation as the agency; a completed and signed Certificate of Liability Insurance naming that department as certificate holder; or a certificate of self-insurance issued after meeting R17-5-810 and A.R.S. 28-4007 and 28-4135. Subsection (D) closes the obvious gap in the binder route: before a binder expires, the carrier must produce either a binder from a different insurance company or one of the durable proofs.
Subsection (E) is the one that changes the answer for most operators who also run interstate: “A person or motor carrier that maintains a valid USDOT number and files proof of financial responsibility with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration under 49 CFR 387 is not required to submit additional proof of financial responsibility under this Section, except on written request by the Department.” The Arizona duty is satisfied by the federal filing — but the Arizona amount in A.R.S. 28-4033 is still the Arizona amount, and the exemption is from submitting proof, not from carrying the limit.
Arizona imposes no cargo insurance requirement and takes no cargo filing from an intrastate property carrier. That is a negative, so here is what was read to establish it.
Article 5 of Title 17 Chapter 5 of the administrative code — Motor Carrier Financial Responsibility — was enumerated in full. Seven sections are present, running R17-5-501 through R17-5-507. Five of them are marked repealed: R17-5-502, R17-5-503, R17-5-505, R17-5-506 and R17-5-507. Only two are live, R17-5-501 Definitions and R17-5-504 Requirement to Submit Proof of Financial Responsibility, and both were read in full. Neither mentions cargo. A.R.S. 28-4032 and 28-4033 were read in full; neither mentions cargo. Article 2 of the same chapter was enumerated in full at twelve sections, and the seventeen section titles of Title 28 Chapter 14 were read; no cargo provision appears in either.
That is a proven absence with a stated denominator, which is a different and much more useful thing than a search that came up empty. It also carries a warning that does not appear anywhere in Arizona law. No cargo filing does not mean no cargo exposure. A carrier that damages a customer’s freight is answerable to the customer under the contract of carriage and under the bill of lading, and the absence of a state minimum simply means the state has left the size of that protection to the parties.
For this class of work that is a live exposure rather than a formality. Light-combination freight runs to a high value per pound — machine components, controlled-temperature goods, replacement parts bought at a premium precisely because something has stopped producing. A cargo limit chosen against an average load is chosen against the wrong load. Arizona will not tell an operator what that limit should be, and neither will a broker’s standard form.
For an operation that is inside the safety chapter, the federal text that governs is not the text currently on the federal register. A.A.C. R17-5-202(A) incorporates by reference 49 CFR 40, 379, 382, 383, 385, 390 (with three carve-outs), 391, 392, 393, 395, 396, 397 and 399, “revised as of October 1, 2023, and no later amendments or editions, as amended under this Article.”
Three phrases in that sentence each do something. “Revised as of October 1, 2023” pins the text. “And no later amendments or editions” forecloses the rolling reading — a federal amendment does not reach an Arizona intrastate carrier by its own force. “As amended under this Article” means the Arizona article itself may change what it adopted, which is why the incorporation cannot be read on its own.
The same subsection then does something unusual: it incorporates a second time, on a different date. Sections 390.23 and 390.25 and the definitions of “direct assistance,” “emergency,” and “residential heating fuel” in 390.5 and 390.5T are incorporated “as published in 88 FR 70897, October 13, 2023, and no later amendments or editions.” Two incorporation dates thirteen days apart, in one subsection, for different pieces of the same part. An operator checking whether a federal change has reached Arizona has to check which piece it touched before checking which date applies.
Subsection (B) states the reach: the incorporated sections “apply as amended under this Article to all intrastate and interstate motor carriers operating in Arizona and persons operating a commercial motor vehicle.” That last phrase routes back to A.R.S. 28-5201 and its twenty-six thousand and one pound line, which is how the two halves of this page connect.
Note also what is not in the incorporation list. 49 CFR Part 387 does not appear in it. Arizona does not reach intrastate financial responsibility through the federal part at all; it writes its own dollar figures directly into A.R.S. 28-4033 and administers them through Article 5. That is why the figures on this page are Arizona’s numbers rather than borrowed ones, and it is why an analysis that starts from the federal part produces the wrong answer for this state.
Arizona has a real, Arizona-specific intrastate hours-of-service variance, and it is in the statute rather than in the rule — which is why a search of the administrative code alone misses it. A.R.S. 28-5234(C) provides that “The following intrastate drivers may begin to calculate hours of service requirements at any point at which the driver goes on duty after the driver has been off duty for twenty-four or more consecutive hours,” and then names three classes.
The first is drivers primarily involved in the transportation of groundwater drilling rigs. The second is drivers used primarily in the transportation of construction materials and equipment en route to or from an active construction site “that is within a seventy-five air mile radius of the driver’s normal work reporting location and is at a stage between initial mobilization of equipment and materials to the site and final completion of the construction project,” with the paragraph expressly not reaching drivers transporting placarded quantities of hazardous materials. The third is drivers of public utility service vehicles operated primarily within the service area of the utility’s subscribers, and the statute adds that “The public utility is not required to be the owner of the vehicle.”
Seventy-five air miles is an Arizona figure. It does not correspond to either federal short-haul radius, and it exists only as the geographic condition on that second class. An operator who moves construction materials on a light combination should read the class carefully, because “primarily” is doing real work in the sentence and a mixed book of business is not obviously inside it.
For a general intrastate for-hire property carrier that fits none of the three classes, Part 395 applies as incorporated at the October 1, 2023 edition, unmodified. That conclusion rests on an enumeration rather than a search: Article 2 of Title 17 Chapter 5 contains exactly twelve sections, and none of them is addressed to Part 395. The only reference to that part anywhere in the article is a local-emergency amendment to 390.23(c) in R17-5-203(D).
Two further exemptions sit in the same statute and are named so they are not mistaken for general relief. Subsection (A) relieves telecommunications-corporation and railroad employees whose driving of a vehicle over eighteen thousand pounds gross vehicle weight rating “is only incidental to the performance of their principal nondriving duties” from Parts 391 and 395, with subparts A and E of 391 preserved in stated circumstances. Subsection (B) relieves public service corporation, political subdivision and railroad employees from any hours requirement during qualifying relief assistance.
Two qualifiers inside A.R.S. 28-5201 change what the twenty-six thousand and one pound line means, and both are easy to read past.
The first is the opening of the section itself: “In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires.” Every definition that follows, including the commercial motor vehicle definition on which the whole safety analysis turns, is offered subject to displacement by context. That is not boilerplate to be trimmed off in a summary. It means the definition is the default reading rather than an unconditional rule, and a page that quotes the number without the chapeau has quoted something firmer than the statute says.
The second sits inside the definition’s own chapeau. A vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle only if it is, among other things, one “that is not exempt from the gross weight fees as prescribed in section 28-5432, subsection B.” The gross-weight-fee exemption is therefore built into the safety definition itself: a vehicle that is exempt from those fees is outside the definition regardless of what it weighs. An operator whose equipment sits near a fee exemption has a second question to answer before the weight question is worth asking.
Applicability is then stated at A.R.S. 28-5202(A), which opens “Except as otherwise provided, this chapter applies to all commercial motor vehicles, commercial motor vehicle combinations and manufacturers, shippers, motor carriers and drivers.” Shippers are named there alongside carriers, which is worth noticing on a class of work where the shipper frequently loads the trailer.
None of this alters the financial-responsibility side, and that is the point. A.R.S. 28-4032 opens “Notwithstanding any other statute,” so the hedges that qualify the safety definition do not travel across into the money rule. The two chapters really are independent, down to the level of their qualifiers.
There is no rate table for this class and no honest way to quote one from a page. What follows is not a price; it is the set of facts that get read before a price exists, ordered the way an Arizona file actually gets worked.
The declared gross weight comes first, because in this state it is not merely descriptive. It decides whether the financial-responsibility article reaches the operation at all, and it decides which rung of the A.R.S. 28-4033 ladder applies. It is also a number the operator chose. A fleet that declared conservatively at registration and then bought a heavier trailer has moved without filing anything, and the paperwork will not catch up on its own.
Radius and the state line come second, and in Arizona they are one question rather than two. A load that stays inside the state is measured against the intrastate limb of the commercial motor vehicle definition. A load that crosses into California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico or across the southern border is measured against the interstate limb in the very next subdivision, which sits far lower. The honest answer to how far an operation runs is a distribution, and the distribution is what gets priced.
Commodity is third, and in Arizona it can remove the weight question entirely. Any placarded or listed hazardous carriage pulls the operation into A.R.S. 28-4032(A)(2), where there is no weight floor and where the ladder runs to seven figures. An operator who takes an occasional hazmat load on an otherwise general-freight book has changed the statutory posture of the whole operation for that load.
Cargo limit is fourth, and it is fourth precisely because the state says nothing about it. With no cargo filing and no state minimum, the limit is set by what the operator buys and what the shipper contract demands. On this class those two numbers are frequently far apart, and the gap is discovered after a loss rather than before one.
Authority type and the contract stack sit underneath all of it. Whether the operation runs under its own USDOT registration or leased on to somebody else’s changes who files what, and whether R17-5-504(E) is doing the work of the Arizona filing. Additional-insured wording, primary-and-non-contributory language and waivers of subrogation flowing down from shipper agreements change the program without changing a single fact about the truck.
No Arizona statute or rule read for this page names this work. There is no defined term for it, no dedicated permit class, no separate filing table, no endorsement the state requires by name. The words operators use for this business do not appear in the instruments that govern it.
That is not a gap in the research, and Arizona is not unusual in it. The state reaches this work the way it reaches motor carriage generally — through a declared weight in one chapter and a rated or actual weight in another — and the reason Arizona earns a page rather than a paragraph is that the two chapters disagree by six thousand pounds across exactly the band this equipment occupies.
The limits of what is established here should be stated plainly. The negatives on this page — no operating-authority regime, no cargo requirement — rest on enumerations of the articles and chapters that would contain them, and those enumerations are recorded above. The declared-weight-versus-gross-vehicle-weight inconsistency in A.R.S. 28-4032 and 28-4033 is flagged and not resolved, because no interpretive authority reconciling the terms was located. And A.R.S. 28-5851’s twelve thousand and one pound line is recorded as a fee and registration boundary, named so that the reader can see where this analysis draws its edge.
What an operator cannot do is look up their own trade in the Arizona code and read the answer off. The answer is assembled from a definition in the safety chapter, a trigger in the financial-responsibility chapter, an amount ladder in the section beside it, and a filing rule in a separate article of the administrative code — four instruments that were not written together and that cross-reference one another only once.
The state minimum is a licensing threshold. The program an operator actually needs is built from these lines:
We write hot shot and expedited hauling as a named class rather than as an exception to general trucking, and we read each account against the weight and authority regime of the state it operates in. For a Arizona operator that means starting from the rating of the power unit and the trailer separately rather than from the combination, sizing cargo against the heaviest load actually carried rather than the average one, and treating the state line as a rating fact because a single crossing can change which driver file the operation owes.
If the operation also runs freight under separate authority, the Arizona trucking insurance page covers the state’s broader motor carrier picture, and the hot shot trucking insurance page covers the class mechanics that apply wherever the operator runs.
A declared gross weight of more than twenty thousand pounds, in furtherance of a commercial enterprise. A.R.S. 28-4032(A)(1) provides that such a person “shall comply with the financial responsibility requirements of this article and article 4 of this chapter.” That is six thousand pounds below the twenty-six thousand and one pound line in the safety chapter’s definition of a commercial motor vehicle, and the financial-responsibility statute opens “Notwithstanding any other statute,” so the two do not have to agree.
Three hundred thousand dollars, combined single limit. A.R.S. 28-4033(A)(1)(b) reads: “For a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of twenty thousand one pounds to twenty-six thousand pounds, minimum coverage in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars.” Above twenty-six thousand pounds the figure in subdivision (A)(1)(a) is seven hundred fifty thousand dollars. There is no rung between them, so a combination that crosses the line moves in one step.
Not under A.R.S. 28-5201(1)(a), which defines an intrastate commercial motor vehicle as one with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross weight of twenty-six thousand one or more pounds, whichever is greater. The section opens “In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,” and the definition also requires that the vehicle not be exempt from the gross weight fees prescribed in A.R.S. 28-5432(B). Both qualifiers travel with the number. The very next subdivision sets a different figure for interstate operation.
There is none to obtain. A.R.S. 40-206 reads in full: “This chapter does not apply to motor carriers as defined in section 28-5851,” which removes motor carriers from Corporation Commission jurisdiction. The Title 28 and Title 40 indexes were read in full for this page and all seventeen section titles of the motor carrier safety chapter were read; none is a certificate, permit or operating-authority provision. Registration and the financial-responsibility filing are administered by the Arizona Department of Transportation.
No, and the absence was established by reading. Article 5 of Title 17 Chapter 5 of the administrative code has seven sections, five of them repealed; the two live sections, R17-5-501 and R17-5-504, were read in full and neither mentions cargo. A.R.S. 28-4032 and 28-4033 were read in full and neither mentions cargo. No state cargo minimum is not the same as no cargo exposure — liability to the shipper under the bill of lading is unaffected.
A.A.C. R17-5-504(A) requires proof on initial motor vehicle registration, or on written request by the department, and only where the carrier does not insure through a company that reports electronically. Accepted proofs are a policy photocopy, a binder dated within ninety days, a signed Form E, a signed Certificate of Liability Insurance naming ADOT as certificate holder, or a certificate of self-insurance. Subsection (E) excuses the filing for a carrier with a valid USDOT number that has filed federally, except on written request.
No. A.A.C. R17-5-202(A) incorporates the listed parts of 49 CFR “revised as of October 1, 2023, and no later amendments or editions, as amended under this Article.” A second incorporation in the same subsection pins 390.23, 390.25 and three defined terms to 88 FR 70897, October 13, 2023. So there are two incorporation dates thirteen days apart, and which one applies depends on which provision moved.
For three named classes, yes, and the variance is in the statute rather than the rule. A.R.S. 28-5234(C) lets drivers primarily transporting groundwater drilling rigs, drivers primarily transporting construction materials to or from an active site within a seventy-five air mile radius of the normal work reporting location, and drivers of public utility service vehicles begin calculating hours after twenty-four or more consecutive hours off duty. A general for-hire property carrier fits none of the three.
There is no table to quote and any figure offered without seeing the operation would be invented. What moves it here is the declared gross weight on the registration and which rung of the A.R.S. 28-4033 ladder it lands on, the radius distribution and whether dispatches leave the state, whether any placarded load is ever carried, the cargo limit set against the heaviest load rather than the average one, whether the operation runs on its own USDOT registration, and the additional-insured and waiver terms in the shipper contracts.
Every figure on this page was read at the source below on September 1, 2026, with the effective date of the version read. Treat each as current as of that date rather than as permanent.
Send the power unit and trailer ratings separately, the radius distribution, and whether any dispatch crosses a state line. We will size the program against the work the trucks actually do rather than against a statutory floor.
