Oregon hot shot trucking insurance for light-combination and expedited freight operators

The parts of light-combination freight work that behave identically in every state — the loading and securement duty, the way one high-value load can exceed a cargo limit written against an average one, the tight delivery window that makes this work worth buying — belong to the class rather than to Oregon, and they are set out on the hot shot trucking insurance page rather than repeated here.

What Oregon adds is an unusually clean structural fact. Chapter 825 of the Oregon Revised Statutes does contain weight lines, and more than one of them sits close to where a one-ton pickup and a loaded gooseneck sit. Every one of those lines is drawn around something other than for-hire freight: private carriage, a passenger class, a named commodity, a government function. Read the chapter looking for the weight at which an operator hauling property for compensation drops out of it, and there is nothing there to find.

That is not the same as saying Oregon regulates this work heavily. It says the regulation attaches by what the operation is rather than by what the truck weighs, which changes which questions decide an account. A newly bought heavier trailer does not move an Oregon operator across a line. Taking the first load for someone else’s money does.

Three clocks run underneath this page and none of them is the others. The statutes were read in the served chapter document on the date shown below. The administrative rules carry a federal-adoption date the state set for itself. And the rules were reached through a mirror rather than the state’s own host, which is disclosed in its own section rather than left for a reader to discover.

Every weight escape in chapter 825 is written to private carriage

ORS 825.017 is the section a reader goes to first, because it is titled “Nonapplicability of chapter to certain persons and vehicles” and it contains the only small weight number in the chapter. It opens with a hedge that travels with everything under it: “Except as provided in this section and ORS 825.026 and 825.030, this chapter does not apply to the persons or vehicles described in this section.”

Subsection (3) is the weight limb, and the qualifier in it is the whole point. It exempts “Vehicles being used for the transportation of property by private carrier by means of a single vehicle or combination of vehicles with a combined weight that does not exceed 8,000 pounds.” A private carrier hauls its own goods. An operator moving another party’s freight for a rate is not inside that sentence at any weight, and the sentence offers no second limb for one who is.

The rest of the list confirms the shape rather than complicating it. School transportation. Taxicab operation in a passenger vehicle whose seating capacity does not exceed five. Implements of husbandry. A hearse or an ambulance. Vehicles used over a private road. Forest products moved off a harvesting site under a written agreement with a federal agency, the State Board of Forestry or the State Forester. Each is a description of what the vehicle is doing, and none of them describes hauling general freight for a shipper.

So the answer to the question an operator actually asks — at what weight does Oregon stop caring — is that the chapter does not answer it in the terms the question is asked. The 8,000 pound line is real, it is precise, and it belongs to somebody else.

• The 8,000 pound line at ORS 825.017(3) is available only to a private carrier moving its own property.
• The other exemption limbs describe activities — school runs, taxicabs, husbandry, hearses, private roads, forest products — not weights.
• The section’s own opening clause preserves ORS 825.026 and 825.030 against everything it exempts.
• Nothing in the section is drawn around a for-hire freight operation at any weight.

The permit is owed whether the truck is loaded or empty

ORS 825.100(1) is the operative sentence and it is worth reading exactly as it stands: “A person may not operate any motor vehicle, whether loaded or empty, on any highway in this state as a carrier in the transportation of persons or property without possessing, in addition to any license required by any other law, a valid certificate or permit from the Department of Transportation authorizing the proposed operation.”

Three things in that sentence do work that a summary would lose. “Whether loaded or empty” forecloses the argument that a deadhead leg is outside the requirement. “In addition to any license required by any other law” forecloses the argument that a registration or a commercial license satisfies it. And the trigger is being a carrier in the transportation of property — a status, not a rating, not an axle count, not a weight.

The same subsection then sets the counting rule for a violation: “Each operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this subsection is a separate violation, whether the prohibited operations occur within the same day or different days or relate to the same motor vehicle or different motor vehicles.” An operator running unpermitted for a month is not exposed to one problem. That per-operation arithmetic is why the permit question has to be settled before the first load rather than after the first inspection.

ORS 825.102(1) supplies the issuing side: the Department of Transportation shall issue a permit to a person to provide transportation service as a for-hire carrier in intrastate commerce if the person applies and the department is satisfied the person can comply with the chapter and the department’s rules. Subsection (2) directs the department to deny the application if the applicant “does not meet the financial responsibility and safety requirements established by this chapter and by rules of the department.” The insurance questions below are therefore not downstream of the permit. They are the gate on it.

The exemption denominator was closed rather than assumed. ORS 825.017, 825.020, 825.022 and 825.032 are the four sections in the chapter that could relieve a vehicle by weight or by class, and all four were read in full in the served chapter document. ORS 825.100 appears in none of them as a provision switched off for a light combination.

One section switches the liability duty off under 26,000 pounds, and it is not the one you would expect

ORS 825.160(1) reads: “A person may not operate as a motor carrier on public highways of this state until the person has in effect a policy of public liability and property damage insurance.” Read alone, that is a flat duty with no weight in it, and a page that stopped there would be describing a regime Oregon does not have.

ORS 825.022 is the section that qualifies it. Its operative sentence lists fifteen sections by number and provides that they “do not apply to any of the following: (1) A vehicle or combination of vehicles with a combined weight of 26,000 pounds or less.” ORS 825.160 is the first section on that list.

Two things follow, and they point in opposite directions. The first is that an Oregon intrastate combination at or below 26,000 pounds combined weight is outside the statutory public-liability-and-property-damage duty in ORS 825.160 — which reaches a great many light combinations doing this work. The second is what is not on the ORS 825.022 list: ORS 825.100, the permit requirement, and ORS 825.162, the cargo insurance requirement. Neither is relieved by the same weight, and the section that relieves the liability duty says nothing about them.

The neighboring section is worth naming so it is not mistaken for a second escape. ORS 825.020 is titled “Applicability of chapter to certain vehicles and combinations over 26,000 pounds” and it applies a long list of sections — including 825.100 and 825.160 — to combinations over 26,000 pounds within four named classes: United States mail carried on a trip basis, short-radius passenger service in vehicles seating more than five, forest-fire patrol, and police-directed or disabled-vehicle towing. It is a section about those four classes. It is not a general weight gate on freight.

The practical reading is uncomfortable and worth stating plainly: an operator can be squarely inside Oregon’s permit requirement, squarely inside its cargo insurance requirement, and outside its statutory liability insurance requirement, all at the same weight on the same day. That is a fact about which duty the statute attaches to which vehicle. It says nothing about whether liability cover is a good idea, and no underwriter and no shipper contract will treat it as though it did.

• ORS 825.160 — statutory public liability and property damage duty — switched off at 26,000 pounds combined weight or less by ORS 825.022(1).
• ORS 825.100 — the permit requirement — is not on the ORS 825.022 list and is not relieved by that weight.
• ORS 825.162 — the cargo insurance requirement — is not on the ORS 825.022 list either.
• ORS 825.020 reaches four named classes over 26,000 pounds and is not a general freight gate.

No permit issues to a freight carrier without cargo insurance in force

Most states treat cargo cover as a filing that sits beside the operating authority. ORS 825.162(1) makes it a condition precedent to the authority existing at all: “A certificate or permit may not be issued to any person to operate intrastate as a for-hire carrier of freight or express until the person has in effect cargo insurance in such penal sum as the Department of Transportation may deem necessary to protect adequately the interests of the public.”

The sentence carries no weight element and no equipment description. It reaches a for-hire carrier of freight or express, and it reaches that carrier at the point of application rather than at some later compliance review. An operator who intends to buy cargo cover after the authority arrives has the sequence backwards as the statute writes it.

The second sentence of the subsection describes the reach the policy has to have, and it is broader than a reader expects. The policy “shall bind the assurer for loss of, or damage to, property carried in, upon or attached to the motor vehicles or other equipment operated by, for or under the control of the assured, or while in the care or custody of the assured.” Property attached to the equipment and property in the care or custody of the carrier are both named. For work that routinely involves loads riding on a deck rather than inside a box, and equipment staged before or after a movement, those two phrases are the ones that decide whether a given loss is inside the description.

Subsection (2) supplies the only relief, and it is a commodity relief rather than a size one: the department “may waive the requirement of cargo insurance for any carrier whose service is limited to commodities not subject to material damage or loss through ordinary transportation hazards.” Two words in that sentence are doing the work. “May” makes it discretionary rather than automatic. “Limited to” makes it a description of the whole service rather than of one load. A carrier that hauls inert material most weeks and machinery occasionally is not a carrier whose service is limited.

ORS 825.164 then hands the compliance mechanics to the department by rule, and it names the consequence directly: the system the department establishes “shall also specify what acts constitute failure to comply for purposes of revocation or suspension of the carrier’s authority.” A lapse in either policy is not a paperwork event with a grace period written into the statute. It is the trigger the statute points at the authority.

Both insurance amounts are delegated out of the statute, and the delegation is the news

An operator reading ORS chapter 825 for the number they have to carry will not find one, and that is a deliberate feature of the drafting rather than a gap in the reading. ORS 825.160(2) provides that insurance required under the section “shall be provided at minimum limits the Department of Transportation by rule may prescribe, and upon such terms, conditions and provisions as the department may determine to be necessary for the reasonable indemnification of the patrons of the applicant and of the public.” The legislature set the duty and handed the amount to the agency.

ORS 825.162(1) does the same thing for cargo with a different phrase — “in such penal sum as the Department of Transportation may deem necessary to protect adequately the interests of the public” — and the difference in wording is itself informative. The liability delegation is to a prescribed minimum limit by rule. The cargo delegation is to a penal sum the department deems necessary, which is a standard rather than a schedule.

ORS 825.160(3) tells the department what to weigh when it fixes an amount: “In fixing the amount of the insurance policy the Department of Transportation shall give due consideration to the character and amount of traffic, the number of persons involved and the degree of danger which the proposed operation involves.” That is a rare thing to find in a statute — the state writing down the underwriting logic it expects its own agency to apply. Character of traffic, volume, exposure count, degree of danger. An operator who can answer those four about their own operation is answering the same questions a market underwriter will ask, in the same order.

The consequence for a page like this one is worth naming. Because the amounts live in department rule rather than in statute, they move on the agency’s clock and without a legislative event to notice. An operator who confirmed a figure once and filed it away has confirmed the state of a rule on a date, not a permanent fact. The place to re-read is the department’s own current rule text, and the reason to re-read is that nothing in the statute would announce a change.

There are also two alternatives to a policy written into the chapter that operators frequently do not know exist. ORS 825.166 permits the holder of a certificate or permit to file, in lieu of a policy or surety bond, an irrevocable letter of credit from an insured institution, or money or specified government obligations, held by the department and delivered to the State Treasurer. ORS 825.168 exempts from ORS 825.160 to 825.166 a for-hire carrier that is or becomes qualified as a self-insurer with the United States Department of Transportation, for as long as that qualification remains effective.

The federal financial-responsibility part is reserved for hazardous loads here

Oregon adopts a long list of federal safety parts for intrastate carriage, and the way it handles the financial-responsibility part inside that adoption is the single most misread thing about the state. OAR 740-100-0010(2)(b) provides that “The provisions of Part 387 will apply to intrastate motor carriers only when transporting hazardous materials, hazardous substances or hazardous wastes.”

For an intrastate Oregon carrier hauling general freight, that sentence removes the federal financial-responsibility part from the picture entirely. Whatever a broker’s onboarding packet or a compliance service’s checklist says about that part, it is not the instrument that reaches this operation inside Oregon. The instruments that do are the two state statutes above and the department rules made under them.

The same rule performs the private-and-for-hire split twice more, in the same shape as the statute. OAR 740-100-0010(2)(c) relieves only “vehicles operated exclusively in intrastate private carriage” at or below 26,000 pounds from the federal marking requirement. OAR 740-100-0010(2)(e) relieves only “a driver who is employed by a private carrier engaged in intrastate commerce” under 26,001 pounds from most of the driver-qualification part. A for-hire operator receives neither relief, at either weight.

That is three separate provisions — a statute and two rule paragraphs — drawing the same distinction in the same direction. It is the most consistent thing in the Oregon material, and it is what makes for-hire status rather than gross weight the first question on an Oregon submission.

• Federal financial responsibility reaches an intrastate Oregon carrier only on hazardous cargo — OAR 740-100-0010(2)(b).
• Marking relief at 26,000 pounds and below: intrastate private carriage only — OAR 740-100-0010(2)(c).
• Driver-qualification relief under 26,001 pounds: drivers employed by a private carrier only — OAR 740-100-0010(2)(e).
• The statutory 8,000 pound escape: private carriage only — ORS 825.017(3).

Twelve hours, a sixteenth-hour wall, and an exception Oregon declined to adopt

Oregon writes its own intrastate property hours of service rather than taking the federal driving rule as written, and the differences are large enough to change how a week is planned. Under OAR 740-100-0010(2)(i), a motor carrier conducting intrastate transportation of property may not require or permit a driver to exceed twelve hours driving following ten consecutive hours off duty, or to drive for any period beyond the sixteenth hour after coming on duty following ten consecutive hours off duty.

The weekly arithmetic is written in two limbs keyed to how the business runs. A driver may not drive for any period following seventy hours on duty in any seven consecutive days if the employing motor carrier does not operate commercial motor vehicles every day of the week; the limit is eighty hours in any eight consecutive days if the carrier does operate every day. The same paragraph provides that any period of seven consecutive days may end with the beginning of any off-duty period of thirty-four or more consecutive hours. Parallel twelve-hour and sixteen-hour limits are imposed at OAR 740-100-0010(2)(g) and (2)(h).

Two carve-outs inside the rule matter to this class in opposite directions. Under OAR 740-100-0010(2)(k), the state variations do not reach placarded hazardous materials, which stay with the federal driving rule as written. And OAR 740-100-0010(2)(j) sets Oregon’s agricultural planting-and-harvesting window at January 1 through December 31 — the full calendar year, which is how a seasonal exception stops being seasonal.

The declined exception is the one worth carrying away. OAR 740-100-0010(3) provides: “The intracity operation exemption adopted by the US Department of Transportation found in Part 391.62 is not adopted and prescribed.” An operator who runs entirely inside one Oregon city, and who has been told there is a driver-qualification relief for exactly that pattern, has been told about a federal provision Oregon expressly refused.

There is one further Oregon-specific consequence that shows up in a safety rating rather than at the roadside. Under OAR 740-100-0010(2)(a)(E)(ii), intrastate hours-of-service violations are added to the acute-and-critical list used for safety-rating purposes, as a critical violation. A carrier that treats the state hours rule as a lesser version of the federal one has the severity backwards.

An exempt Oregon vehicle still files a mileage report

It is easy to read an exemption as invisibility, and Oregon writes a short section that forecloses it. ORS 825.018 provides that owners or operators of vehicles exempt from the provisions of chapter 825 by ORS 825.017 “shall file an annual report with the Department of Transportation showing the miles of travel by registered weight class of vehicle for each exempt vehicle”, in the form and manner the department determines by rule.

So the state keeps a record of the traffic it has exempted, indexed by weight class. That is a small provision with a large implication for how an operator should think about the private-and-for-hire boundary: the department is not indifferent to what runs under the exemption, and the exemption comes with a reporting duty attached rather than with silence.

It also matters for a mixed operation, which is common in this class. An operator who moves their own materials on some days and takes paid freight on others is not choosing between two regulatory postures once. They are running both, and the paperwork on each side is different — a permit, a cargo policy and a safety file on the for-hire side, an annual mileage report on the exempt side.

Whichever side a load falls on is a fact about the load, not about the truck. It is worth knowing which one is which before an adjuster asks.

Oregon voids the hold-harmless clause a freight contract usually carries

ORS 825.170(1) provides that, except as the section allows, “any provision in a motor carrier transportation contract that requires either party or either party’s surety or insurer to indemnify or hold harmless the other party against liability for death, personal injury or property damage caused in whole or in part by the negligence or intentional acts or omissions of the other party is void.”

Three features of that sentence decide how much it is worth. It reaches the party’s insurer and surety by name, not only the party. It voids indemnity for damage caused “in whole or in part” by the other party’s conduct, which is the formulation that catches the broad clauses rather than only the extreme ones. And it operates on the provision itself — the clause is void, rather than merely unenforceable in some later proceeding.

The exceptions are narrow and both are worth knowing. Subsection (2) preserves any provision requiring indemnity against liability “that arises out of the fault of the indemnitor, or the fault of the indemnitor’s agents, representatives or subcontractors” — that is, an operator can still be asked to stand behind its own fault and its own subcontractors’ fault. Subsection (3) removes the section entirely from the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement and from other agreements providing for the interchange, use or possession of intermodal chassis, containers or equipment.

Subsection (4) defines the contracts reached, and the definition is broader than a haul agreement. A “motor carrier transportation contract” is any written agreement for the transportation of personal property for compensation or hire; for entry upon real property for the purpose of packing, loading, unloading or transporting personal property for compensation or hire; or for a service incidental to either, “including, but not limited to, storage of personal property for compensation or hire.”

For an operator who signs broker agreements without negotiating them — which is most of this class — this is the provision that changes the shape of a signed contract without changing a word of it. It does not make a bad agreement good. It removes one specific term from the parts of it Oregon will enforce.

Status first, then the 26,000 pound line, then the commodity waiver

There is no table to quote for this class and any figure offered without seeing the operation would be invented. What follows is not a rate. It is the set of facts that decide one, arranged in the order they actually get asked about an Oregon submission.

Status comes first and it is not a close call. Whether the operation is for hire or private decides the permit, the cargo requirement, the marking relief and the driver-qualification relief in one answer, because Oregon draws that line four separate times in four separate instruments. An operator who moves their own goods and an operator who moves someone else’s can run identical trucks and land in different regulatory positions, and a submission that is vague about which one it is will be read as the more exposed one.

Combined weight comes second, and it matters for a narrower reason than usual. It does not decide whether the permit is owed — nothing does except status. It decides whether the ORS 825.160 statutory liability duty reaches the operation at all, because ORS 825.022(1) switches that section off at 26,000 pounds combined weight and under. The honest number here is the heaviest combination actually assembled, not the rating on the power unit, because a trailer swap moves it without any decision being made.

Commodity is third and it does two jobs in Oregon rather than one. It sets the exposure a cargo limit has to answer — light-combination freight skews toward high value per pound, because parts bought at a premium precisely because a machine has stopped are exactly what gets moved this way. And it decides whether the ORS 825.162(2) commodity waiver is even conceivable, which turns on whether the service is limited to commodities not subject to material damage or loss through ordinary transportation hazards.

Authority type and the contract stack sit underneath all of it. Running on your own Oregon permit is a different posture from running under another carrier’s, both for the filings and for who answers to a claim. What the shipper agreement requires by way of additional insured, primary and non-contributory wording, and waiver of subrogation changes the program without changing anything about the truck — subject to ORS 825.170, which removes one specific class of term from what Oregon will enforce.

Driver file and hours discipline close it out, and Oregon makes them heavier than a federal-only reading would suggest. The state runs its own twelve-hour and sixteenth-hour limits, declines the intracity exemption outright, and treats an intrastate hours violation as a critical one for safety-rating purposes.

• For-hire or private, stated plainly — it decides four separate reliefs at once.
• Heaviest combination actually assembled, against the 26,000 pound line in ORS 825.022(1).
• Commodity mix, the value of the heaviest load carried, and whether the service is genuinely limited to low-hazard commodities.
• Own permit or another carrier’s, and who the shipper contract names.
• Driver ages, tenure and hours discipline under the Oregon twelve-and-sixteen rule.
• Radius as a distribution, and whether any dispatch leaves the state and takes the intrastate posture with it.

The rules on this page were read through a mirror, and that is stated rather than hidden

Every statutory quotation above was read in the chapter document served by the Oregon Legislature’s own host, which returned ORS chapter 825 in full under the title block “Oregon Revised Statutes / Chapter 825 — Motor Carriers”. The administrative rules were not, and a page that let a reader assume otherwise would be claiming more than it has.

The official administrative-rules host at secure.sos.state.or.us returns HTTP 200 for the rules cited here and serves an empty rendered body carrying a JavaScript challenge shell — no rule text, no title block, nothing to check a citation against. Re-probing with a full desktop user agent and the usual request headers did not clear it. An HTTP 200 from that host is a liveness test and not an identity test, and it was recorded as a failure rather than counted as a read.

The rule text quoted above was therefore taken from a mirror that reproduces the rules and prints its own source line back to the official state URL with its access date. The official URLs are the ones cited on this page, because they are the authority; the mirror is how the text was reached. An operator relying on a specific rule paragraph for a decision should treat that paragraph as verified-via-mirror and confirm it with the department directly.

This is a smaller problem than it sounds for the questions this page is about, because the load-bearing Oregon facts — that the permit has no weight in it, that cargo insurance gates the permit, that the statutory liability duty is switched off at 26,000 pounds and under, and that every weight escape is written to private carriage — all come from the statutes, read in the served chapter document. The rule layer supplies the federal adoption, the hours variations and the amounts, and the amounts are not on this page at all.

No Oregon instrument names this trade, and the weight lines all point elsewhere

No Oregon statute or rule read for this page names this work. There is no defined term for it in chapter 825, no dedicated permit class, no separate filing schedule and no endorsement the state mandates for it by name. The vocabulary operators use for this business does not appear in the instruments that govern it, and that is a finding rather than a gap in the search.

Oregon reaches it the way it reaches every other freight operation: through the fact of carrying property for compensation, and through weight lines drawn for reasons that had nothing to do with light combinations. What makes Oregon distinctive is not that it wrote something for this equipment. It is that its weight lines are all pointed somewhere else, so the equipment never escapes through one.

The practical consequence is that an operator cannot look up their trade in the Oregon code and read the answer off a page. The answer is assembled from a status test in the permit statute, a condition precedent in the cargo statute, a fifteen-section carve-out in a nonapplicability section, and a rule chapter that reserves the federal financial-responsibility part for hazardous loads. Four instruments, none of which cross-references the others in the terms an operator would search.

Coverage lines a Oregon hot shot account usually carries

The state minimum is a licensing threshold. The program an operator actually needs is built from these lines:

• Trucking Auto Liability — Primary liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage caused by your truck while under dispatch.
• Physical Damage — Collision and comprehensive coverage for the tractor, trailer, and attached equipment you own or finance.
• Motor Truck Cargo — Coverage for the freight you haul against loss or damage in transit.
• Trailer Interchange — Coverage for non-owned trailers you pull under written interchange agreements.
• General Liability — Coverage for premises and operations liability away from the truck — terminal yards, customer docks, and non-driving exposures.
• Workers Compensation — Statutory coverage for driver and yard-employee injury, structured for trucking payrolls and interstate operations.
• Non-Trucking (Bobtail) Auto Liability — Liability coverage for the tractor when operated off-dispatch — bobtailing home or running personal errands.
• Pollution Liability — Coverage for cargo-related pollution events and upset/overturn spills not covered by standard auto liability.

Why Truck Guard Insurance for a Oregon hot shot account

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 Oregon 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 Oregon 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.

Sources

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.

• ORS chapter 825 — Motor Carriers (Oregon Legislature) — The whole chapter served in one document, 399,811 bytes, title block “Oregon Revised Statutes / Chapter 825 — Motor Carriers”. Read September 1, 2026. ORS 825.017 (nonapplicability, including the private-carrier 8,000 pound limb at subsection (3)), 825.018 (annual mileage report from exempt owners), 825.020 (the four named classes over 26,000 pounds), 825.022 (the fifteen-section carve-out at 26,000 pounds combined weight or less), 825.100 (certificate or permit required), 825.102 (issuance to intrastate for-hire carriers), 825.160 (liability insurance and the delegation of limits), 825.162 (cargo insurance as a condition of issuance), 825.164 (compliance system and suspension), 825.166 (letter of credit or securities in lieu), 825.168 (self-insurance) and 825.170 (prohibited indemnification provisions) were each read in full in that document..
• OAR 740-100-0010 — Adoption of Federal Safety Regulations (Oregon Department of Transportation) — The federal adoption “and all amendments thereto in effect April 1, 2021”; the reservation of the federal financial-responsibility part to hazardous loads at (2)(b); the private-carriage marking and driver-qualification reliefs at (2)(c) and (2)(e); the twelve-hour and sixteenth-hour intrastate limits and weekly cycle at (2)(g) through (2)(i); the placarded-hazmat exclusion at (2)(k); the January 1 to December 31 agricultural window at (2)(j); the refusal to adopt the federal intracity exemption at (3); and the critical-violation treatment of intrastate hours violations at (2)(a)(E)(ii). ⚠ VERIFIED-VIA-MIRROR. The official host at this URL returns HTTP 200 with an empty rendered body carrying a JavaScript challenge shell and no rule text, both on the original read of August 31, 2026 and on re-probe. The rule text was read from a mirror that prints its own source line back to this URL..
• ORS 825.100 — Certificate or permit required for commercial transportation of persons or property on public highways — Subsection (1) in full, including “whether loaded or empty”, “in addition to any license required by any other law”, and the per-operation counting rule for violations. Read in the served chapter document September 1, 2026. Source note on the section: “Formerly 767.105; 2025 c.17 §8”..
• ORS 825.022 — Nonapplicability of certain provisions to vehicles and combinations — The fifteen enumerated sections, beginning with ORS 825.160, that do not apply to “(1) A vehicle or combination of vehicles with a combined weight of 26,000 pounds or less.” ORS 825.100 and ORS 825.162 are not among the enumerated sections. Read in the served chapter document September 1, 2026. Source note on the section: “Formerly 767.028; 2007 c.465 §11; 2015 c.283 §3”..
• ORS 825.162 — Cargo insurance — Subsection (1), conditioning issuance of a certificate or permit to an intrastate for-hire carrier of freight or express on cargo insurance being in force, and describing the reach of the policy to property carried in, upon or attached to the equipment or in the care or custody of the assured; subsection (2), the discretionary commodity waiver. Read September 1, 2026. Source note on the section: “Formerly 767.200; 2011 c.73 §1”..
• ORS 825.170 — Prohibited indemnification provisions in motor carrier transportation contracts; exceptions — Subsection (1) voiding indemnity and hold-harmless provisions for the other party’s own negligence or intentional acts; subsection (2) preserving indemnity for the indemnitor’s own fault and that of its agents, representatives and subcontractors; subsection (3) excluding intermodal interchange agreements; subsection (4) defining “motor carrier transportation contract” to include entry upon real property and incidental services including storage. Read September 1, 2026. Source note on the section: “[2011 c.159 §2]”..