*2 ROBERTS, C.J., Before NIX, LARSEN, and FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, HUTCHINSON and JJ.
McDERMOTT, Justice.
This is an
from the
appeal
Commonwealth Court order
conviction for
affirming appellant’s
violations of the Motor
Vehicle
434,
Code.1 65 Pa.Cmwlth.
Section 4941 the Vehicle Code for prescribes penalties operating overweight vehicles on the In section highways.2 4901, the legislature made for provision issue PennDOT special permits, allow, under hauling conditions, certain loads in of the 73,280 excess limit of to use legal pounds highways and avoid Appellant and penalty.3 applied received a haul a bulldozer on a trailer tractor combination that weighed pounds.
PennDOT, regulation, that a so requires truck loaded two and accompanied by pilot cars display “OVERSIZE LOAD” placards.4 transit these During were regulations violated by appellant. Instead of two he had one pilot and the required placards were not displayed.
Stopped a state trooper, was cited violations. His truck was then and over- being weight he was also issued a citation 17, 1976, 81, 162, 1, 1977, seq., July 1. Act of June P.L. No. et eff. 4901, seq. et §§ 2. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
3. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § regulations promulgated Chapter Regu- 4. The were at 67 Pa.Code 51.10, appear lation now and at 67 Pa.Code 179.10. costs plus he was justice Taken before a district two cars regulation requiring for violation of the was also fined He failure to oversize placards. was overweight. his truck $20,400.00 costs because plus novo, to the Court On de appeal, found guilty was again County, appellant Westmoreland all violations. the regulations promul- whether
The central issue here is therefore, whether, are all of a piece PennDOT gated by the penalties regulations precipitates The of their purpose. regardless available for all infractions affirmative, their upon based in the lower courts found is as follows: construction of regulation conditions following conditions. General Ҥ these regulations, under issued shall apply where applicable: *3 the by invalidated automatically shall be
(8) permit therein, violation of by specified condition any information on of false or the giving these regulations or such violation Any the permit. the application refusal to issue also be grounds falsification will applications.” on future 179.10(8). ad- the Code 49 of chapter in enacting The legislature different and prescribed objectives several different dressed objectives. to accomplish penalties limitations, to maximum C, addressed Subchapter the violations,5 pur- of fines for scale provides graduated unlicensed damage by of highway pose being prevention fines under The large users. and unsupervised reimbursement deterrents but are not only this subchapter the occasion address does not C Subchapter for damage. excessive weight. allowing are issued when permits Subchap- A D.6& subchapters for in are provided Permits 4945. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4901, 4961, 4962. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ ter A provides for safety regulations the uses during permit- ted, and subsection 8 of regulation 51.10 supra provides for the automatic invalidation of an issued if regulations are violated.
There is a vast difference between a permit invalidated for safety violations and no permit at all. Appellant obtain- ed a permit by posting bond guaranteeing against damage the regulation is designed to His prevent. violation was against the safety regulations, not against the provi- sions aimed at regulating weight and preventing damage To highway. inflict a for a penalty violation already provided against by appellant’s bond is a harsh penalty can be supported only by clearest provision. The penal- ty under subchapter A for violation of the safety regulations is a fine,7 and the invalidation of the permit and possible prescription against future applications. The loss of a permit in mid-transit would itself be no small penalty one who thus might grounded an unmovable load. The different penalties provided PennDOT regulation address different objectives, each designed punish prevent different wrongs. hold, therefore, We that automatic invalidation of a permit violation of the regulations is a in and of itself and does not trigger all the penalties possible under the regulations. we vacate appellant’s conviction under Sec-
tion 4941. files a concurring opinion. *4 concurring.
I agree that was appellant improperly to pursuant section of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § imposes sanctions for exceeding the maximum weight per- mitted section 4941 for loads transported on the high- ways. to Appellant sought a transport which, bulldozer when combined vehicle, with his pounds, imposed 7. The lower pursuant $50.00 court a fine to section 4907 of Code, permitting fines of not less than $50.00 nor more than chapter. for violations under this § section gross weight permitted more than the maximum load on to However, transport before attempting “over- obtained a valid sought state highways, appellant Transportation of Department from weight permit” he as the bulldozer which 4961(a)(2), to section pursuant 67 Pa.Code was “nondivisible.” transport to sought § a vehicle for operating citations against appellant 179.10(13), failing
without 67 Pa.Code § failing 179.10(15), oversize load placards, trailer, 67 Pa.Code red on his post flags immediately for requiring provided grounds correct the state highway, vehicle from remove his fine as established violations, and safety pay $50 However, violations. safety section 4907 for those for subjecting appellant no basis citations provided an of the Vehicle Code for section 4945 $20,250 fine under no indication of violation, as there is overweight-vehicle vehicle with a proper intent to deem a legislative provisions “overweight” purposes to be because of unrelated merely reversed. is properly
the order of
Commonwealth