This is the section no scraped table can produce. Each entry below is a positive finding with the rule behind it: we searched the state's statute, its administrative code and the agency's own pages, and there is no published escort rate to quote. Two different reasons sit in this list and they are not interchangeable — a state that bills actual cost through an escrow has no rate card to find, while a state that charges for troopers and publishes nothing has one and does not print it.
Charges exist, nothing published
ALASKA PUBLISHES NEITHER A TRIGGER NOR A RATE, AND THE TRIGGER IS THE MORE IMPORTANT HALF. 17 AAC 25 and the Administrative Permit Manual (April 2023, adopted by reference in 17 AAC 25.320(b)) were both read in full for "police", "law enforcement", "trooper" and "escort". There is NO width, height, length or weight at which a law-enforcement escort becomes mandatory anywhere in either document — which is unlike the discretionary-rate states, where the escort is required and only the price is missing. The two places law enforcement appears are conditional on judgement rather than on dimension: § 6.7.3, "When an adequate emergency traffic lane cannot be provided, reduction in size of buildings or other very large structures by severance or removal of portions may be required. Coordination with local police and/or State troopers may also be required", and § 6.7.5, which lets the Regional Safety Engineer or the Director of MSCVC require "An approved traffic control plan, or plan to mitigate safety concerns". The civilian pilot/escort ladder at §§ 6-9 carries every codified escort Alaska has, and it reaches FOUR vehicles on width where most states stop at two. 17 AAC 25.380 — the entire fee section — contains no law-enforcement charge of any kind: its only figures are the $40/$70 basic processing charges, the $25/$35 width and height surcharges, the $25 weight surcharge, the $80-per-hour bridge design review and the $30 replacement, change and cancellation fees. No hourly rate, officer minimum, minimum hours, mileage charge or cancellation term for a police escort appears in either document, and none was adopted from any commercial permit service.
Charges exist, nothing published
ARIZONA PUBLISHES THE BILLING MECHANISM AND NOT THE RATE. ADOT's Escort Information and Guidelines page sets out how a DPS escort is paid for — "The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), requires payment for DPS officers performing oversize-overweight vehicle escorts to be made electronically... On completion of the officer-assisted vehicle escort, DPS, using EZ DPS Escorts, will electronically bill the carrier for total escort expenses incurred, plus a $4.00 administrative fee for each transaction" — and the only figure on it is that $4.00 transaction fee. "Total escort expenses incurred" is not a rate. No hourly figure, minimum hours, officer minimum, mileage rate or cancellation charge appears on that page, on the pages it links (Escort Vehicles Rules and Regulations, Law Enforcement Escort Best Practices Guidelines, Route Restriction Table 4), or in A.R.S. 28-1110. THE $93.18 PER HOUR PER TROOPER FIGURE IS NOT ADOPTED: it is quoted by commercial permit services as an increase effective 30 May 2022 and appears in no ADOT or AZ DPS publication, and a $4.00 fee is not grounds for filing Arizona as a state that publishes a rate.
Charges exist, nothing published
The Permit Section may require one or more law-enforcement vehicles under ARDOT Rules 3.E.7, 4.H.2 and 6.E.6. No dimension triggers it automatically and Arkansas publishes no officer rate.
Charges exist, nothing published
No CHP hourly or per-mile escort rate exists in chp.ca.gov, dot.ca.gov or 21 CCR. The $50 per hour in 21 CCR §1411.3(c)(4) is Caltrans traffic-operations staff — a different agency and a different service — and must not be read as a trooper rate.
No schedule exists — structural
Structural, not a gap: 2 CCR 601-4 §606.4 bills the actual cost of Colorado State Patrol time through a bond or escrow. There is no rate card to find — the number is whatever the escort actually costs.
Charges exist, nothing published
CONNECTICUT'S OWN LEGISLATURE RESEARCHED THIS QUESTION AND FOUND NO RATE EITHER. OLR Report 2016-R-0195, titled "State Police Escorts for Oversize and Overweight Vehicles", surveys Connecticut and five neighbours and prices none of them. On Connecticut it is explicit that the requirement itself is not codified: "Although neither law nor regulation requires state police escorts, a DOT permit for nonconforming vehicles may specify the presence and number of escort vehicles (including but not limited to police escorts)", and CTDOT's own permit page says only that "The need for Connecticut State Police escort(s) will be determined by CTDOT at the time of permit issuance." Neither CGS §14-270, Conn. Agency Regs. §14-270-21 nor the CTDOT FAQ states an hourly rate, minimum hours, officer minimum, mileage charge or cancellation fee.
Charges exist, nothing published
The District is the only jurisdiction here where the TRIGGER is contradicted and the RATE is absent at the same time. DDOT publishes two police-escort tables in the same year that disagree on every threshold — OSOWFAQ_2023.pdf at 15 ft wide / 14 ft 6 in high / 150,000 lb and "may be required", overweight_vehicles.pdf at 12 ft wide / 75 ft long / 13 ft 6 in high / 120,000 lb and "Yes for" — and neither document, the DDOT site, nor the Metropolitan Police Department publishes an hourly rate, minimum hours, mileage, per diem or cancellation charge. The DDOT instruction is to email MPD at motorcarrier@dc.gov to find out whether an escort is needed at all. Both DDOT PDFs and DCMR Title 18 chapter 25 were read in full.
No schedule exists — structural
FHP escorts of commercial overdimensional loads are OFF-DUTY POLICE EMPLOYMENT under FHP Policy 5.10, approved troop by troop, so there is no statewide schedule. Nothing in FHP 5.10, FAC 14-26, FS 316.550 or FDOT's permit pages states a rate.
Charges exist, nothing published
Georgia requires police escorts for a house move and a minimum of two for a Mega Load, and publishes no hourly, per-mile, minimum-call or administrative rate for either.
No schedule exists — structural
STRUCTURAL: HAWAII HAS NO STATE POLICE. Law enforcement is COUNTY — Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, Maui and Kauaʻi each run their own department — so an escort is a county special-duty detail and there is no state figure to find, the Virginia case with an island geography. HAR 19-104 (read via its chapter index and §§19-104-14, -15 and -26) leaves escorts to the district engineer and states no escort charge; its only fees are the $5.00-$25.00 permit fees, and HDOT's OS/OW permit page says nothing about police at all. The Honolulu Police Department's own Police Escort policy confirms the service and prices it nowhere: officers on "special duty escorts" must verify "proper permits from the Department of Transportation Services of the City and County of Honolulu and/or the Highways Division, Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii" before the move begins, and no rate, minimum or cancellation term appears.
No schedule exists — structural
IDAHO'S ESCORT IS THE PERMITTEE'S OWN VEHICLE, IN THE RULE'S OWN WORDS, AND NO POLICE RATE EXISTS ANYWHERE IN THE SCHEME. IDAPA 39.03.01 § 306.01 "Vehicle Requirements" settles who provides it: "Pilot/escort vehicle(s) will be furnished by the permittee and will be either passenger car(s), truck(s), or vehicles authorized by the Commercial Vehicle Services Office, however, will not exceed sixteen (16,000) pounds. The truck(s) used as pilot/escort vehicle(s) will not be loaded in such a manner as to cause confusion to the public as to which vehicle is the one under escort. Vehicles towing trailers will not qualify as pilot/escort vehicles." A patrol car is not a permittee-furnished passenger car under 16,000 lb, and § 306 — read across subsections 01 to 15 — never mentions a law-enforcement officer, the Idaho State Police, a trooper or a police escort in any subsection. Idaho Code § 49-940(3) describes the same private vehicle: "The escort vehicle must be a car or light truck and it must be equipped with an oversize load sign, flashing or rotating lights, and a two (2) way radio." THE FEE SCHEDULE CONFIRMS IT BY OMISSION: § 107 publishes $30 oversize single-trip, $33 overweight/oversize single-trip, $45 annual, $128 annual overweight/oversize non-divisible, $15 reissue or transfer and a $5 online discount, and no escort charge of any kind. WHAT IS NOT CLAIMED HERE, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO STRONG: this is NOT a finding that an Idaho officer is never paid. § 107.07 "Extraordinary Services" leaves an actual-cost route open — "The Department may require reimbursement of actual costs incurred for extraordinary services provided, incidental and necessary to the planning and/or movement of loads that require a special permit moving under the requirements of a traffic control plan" — with no rate, no hours, no minimum and no agency named; and ITD did once require Idaho State Police escorts on the Highway 12 megaloads at the shipper's expense, reported as a lump-sum cap of up to $41,000 of officer overtime and travel for one project before ITD dropped the requirement entirely. A per-project lump sum negotiated once is not a tariff and cannot be divided into an hourly rate. So the finding is the Colorado shape: where an officer is paid at all, Idaho bills actual cost and publishes no schedule, which is why there is no rate card to find. NO BROKER FIGURE WAS ADOPTED: SEO permit-cost pages quote escort ranges such as "$0 to $150 to $800" and permit ranges of "$100 to $1,000" for Idaho and appear in no ITD or ISP document, and the Nevada precedent in this file refuses numbers only resellers print. SOURCE NOTE, BECAUSE IT IS THE REASON IDAHO WAS UNREAD: adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/39/390301.pdf still returns undecodable embedded font streams, so § 306.01 and § 107 were read through Cornell LII's copy of IDAPA 39.03.01 (law.cornell.edu/regulations/idaho/IDAPA-39.03.01.306 and -39.03.01.107), corroborated for § 306.01 by a second mirror and for the private-vehicle description by the PRIMARY statute at legislature.idaho.gov. The gap that blocked this state was a PDF text layer, not an absent document, and reading a different copy of the same rule closed it.
Charges exist, nothing published
IOWA PUBLISHES A CEILING AND NO RATE, AND THE SCHEMA MUST NOT FLATTEN ONE INTO THE OTHER. Iowa Admin. Code r. 761—511.20(321E) says, in full on the money question, "Escort fees charged by state and local authorities shall not exceed $250 per day per escort vehicle." That is a MAXIMUM. Recording $250 as `minimumChargeUsdPerOfficer` would invert it — a cap read as a floor is wrong in the expensive direction on every short move — and `PoliceEscortRate` has no field for a ceiling, so Iowa holds no row. The rule states no hourly figure, no minimum hours and no minimum charge, and it points traffic control at an on-duty officer rather than a priced detail: "The escort shall not assume responsibility for stopping traffic. An on-duty peace officer, as defined in Iowa Code section 321.1, shall be contacted to provide any traffic control needed." THE $25 PER HOUR PER OFFICER FIGURE IS NOT ADOPTED: it is quoted by commercial permit services and appears nowhere in 761—511 or Iowa Code ch. 321E.
No schedule exists — structural
THE SHORTEST CHECKED NEGATIVE IN THE CORPUS, AND THE AGENCY WROTE IT. The Kansas Highway Patrol publishes an FAQ headed "Does the Kansas Highway Patrol offer escort vehicles for oversize loads?" and answers it: "No. Superloads, large structures, and loads exceeding 14 feet in width require escort vehicles. All escort service providers and operators must be registered with KDOT. (KSA 8-1921 and KAR 36-45-1 through 36-45-10)" There is no rate because there is no service — the New Jersey shape. Every Kansas escort is a registered private escort vehicle service provider, and K.A.R. 36-45 regulates those providers rather than pricing them.
Charges exist, nothing published
Neither the Kentucky State Police (502 KAR, KRS Chapter 16) nor the Transportation Cabinet publishes an application fee, hourly officer rate, minimum hours, mileage charge or cancellation charge. The title index was opened and searched.
Charges exist, nothing published
A CHECKED NEGATIVE IN THE DOCUMENT THAT PROMISES THE RATE IN ITS OWN TITLE. 29-250 C.M.R. ch. 156 is headed "Fee structure for over dimensional and overweight loads, ALONG WITH STATE POLICE ESCORT FEE", and its § 3 states a billing rule and no price: escorts are "assessed at the actual cost of services including a two (2) hour minimum hourly vehicle cost", and "The minimum charge for the escort will be for four (4) hours which will be billed by the Department of Public Safety." 29-A M.R.S. § 2382(9-A)(A) explains why there is no figure to find in the rule — it delegates one that has not been published here: "The Bureau of State Police shall establish a fee for state police escorts to defray the costs of providing a police escort. A county sheriff or municipal police department may establish a fee to defray the costs of providing police escorts." Maine REQUIRES the escort at 16 ft wide, 125 ft long or over 15 ft of rear overhang, so the count is quotable and the cost is not. The four-hour minimum is the one piece of structure that is published and it is a real floor on a short move.
Charges exist, nothing published
MARYLAND'S REGULATION SAYS THE SCHEDULE IS INTERNAL, WHICH IS A STRONGER FINDING THAN A FAILED SEARCH. COMAR 11.04.01.08.F: "Except for permits requiring unique or unusual considerations as may be determined by the Maryland State Police, the fee for a single escort by off-duty Maryland State Police officers is based upon the reasonable expenses incurred, as established by a schedule maintained by the Unit." The Unit is the SHA Hauling Permits Unit and its schedule is not published. COMAR 11.04.04.06 sets the trigger — police escort for a move "16 feet wide or more or in excess of 75 tons gross weight" — and puts the cost on the permittee without naming it: "The permittee is responsible for costs incurred by the law enforcement agency in the course of escorting the permittee's oversize or overweight vehicle." The Wisconsin shape: the mechanism is published and the inputs are not. TWO MARYLAND FIGURES MUST NOT BE MISTAKEN FOR THIS ONE. COMAR 11.04.01.08 does publish a $20.00/$12.00 ENGINEERING escort fee and a $200.00 daily MONITORING fee; both are SHA staff, not police, exactly as Utah's $40.00 departmental minimum is. And the $250.00 "fee for escort by off-duty Maryland State Police Troopers" quoted by commercial permit services appears nowhere in COMAR 11.04.01.08, which was read in full.
Charges exist, nothing published
MASSACHUSETTS PUBLISHES ONE OF THE FIRMEST TRIGGERS IN THE CORPUS AND NO PRICE AT ALL. 700 CMR 7.07(7) was read in full: "State Police Escort. In addition to the requirements with respect to a pilot car as specified in 700 CMR 7.07(4)(d), an over-size vehicle, with its load, that is wider than 16 feet or longer than 135 feet must be escorted by two motor vehicles of the Massachusetts State Police. Any vehicle that, in the opinion of the Chief Engineer, may be incapable of operating at a minimum speed such that it may pose a danger to individuals, property, or the safe operation of a way, may be required to be accompanied by motor vehicles of the Massachusetts State Police." TWO troopers, mandatory, "must" — and 700 CMR 7.00 contains no escort charge anywhere. Its only police-related figures are the $500 and $100 PENALTIES in the 7.13 violation schedule, including "Failure to conform with requirements for pilot car, police escort, or warning sign — $500", which is a fine and not a fee. MassDOT's permit fees in the same regulation ($40.00 per trip irreducible, $50.00 per 1,000 lb reducible) do not include the escort. Note also that OLR Report 2016-R-0195 reports this trigger as "wider than 15 feet"; the regulation says 16, and the regulation governs.
Charges exist, nothing published
MDOT Special Provision 14 reads, in full, "Police supervision of traffic required on move." No width, height, length or weight triggers it, and neither the Michigan State Police nor MDOT publishes an hourly rate, minimum hours, officer minimum or mileage rate in michigan.gov/msp, T-1, either revision of T-2, the permit conditions, Form 2465 or the OS/OW FAQ. A required police escort also forces a motor-carrier-officer inspection before movement, for which no fee is published either.
Charges exist, nothing published
Minnesota requires a lead LICENSED PEACE OFFICER whenever a load crosses the centerline on an undivided roadway, and publishes no rate for one. Minn. Stat. § 169.812, § 299D.085, Minn. R. 7455, the MnDOT escorts page and the May 2025 superload guide were all read; the only price in the scheme is Minn. R. 7455.0300 subp. 1(A) sets $180 initial and $90 renewal for the CIVILIAN certification course. MnDOT devolves the escort to three tiers of agency — State Patrol, county sheriffs, city police — and says "individual agency requirements may vary". Minnesota also requires the officer to hold the same § 299D.085 certificate as a civilian, so not every trooper qualifies.
Charges exist, nothing published
Mississippi requires two blue-light escorts at 300,000 lb or more and contemplates a discretionary police escort by width, and neither MDOT nor the Mississippi Department of Public Safety publishes an hourly rate, minimum hours, officer minimum, mileage rate or cancellation charge. The Manual says only that "The Mississippi Department of Public Safety (DPS) is authorized to enforce Mississippi laws relating to commercial vehicles".
Charges exist, nothing published
MoDOT requires a law-enforcement escort over 18 ft wide, over 200 ft long and over 18 ft high, and publishes no hourly, mileage or fixed rate. 7 CSR 10-25 says only that permitting authority may be revoked if escorting agencies are not reimbursed.
No schedule exists — structural
MONTANA TRIGGERS NO LAW-ENFORCEMENT ESCORT AT ANY DIMENSION, SO THERE IS NO RATE TO PUBLISH — and the document the old refusal was waiting on does not exist. THE GOVERNING ESCORT RULE IS ARM 18.8.511A, "When pilot vehicles are required", and it is already in this corpus: it sets every Montana escort threshold there is — non-interstate one front car over 12 ft 6 in, one front and one rear over 16 ft 6 in, at least two front and one rear over 18 ft, at least two front and two rear over 24 ft, one rear over 150 ft of length and one front and one rear over 200 ft; interstate one rear over 16 ft 6 in and at least two rear side by side over 18 ft; a height pole on the front car over 17 ft — and it names no law-enforcement officer, no Highway Patrol, no trooper and no police escort in any subsection, states no fee or charge of any kind, and contemplates only a "pilot vehicle". MCA 61-10-124 and 61-10-125 contain no escort-cost provision; MDT's Permit Restrictions and Superload Instructions were read in full and require PRIVATE pilot vehicles only; and where MDT wants traffic held it asks the PERMITTEE to "provide adequate traffic control personnel, equipment, and devices" — the permittee's cost, not a state charge. ARM 18.8.1602 — the rule this state was held unread waiting for — IS NOT A MONTANA RULE: the Administrative Rules list chapter 18.8 "Motor Carrier Services Division" as running subchapter 18.8.1 to 18.8.15, with nothing numbered 18.8.16xx, so the citation the earlier wave was blocked on pointed at a subchapter that does not exist, while the subchapter that actually governs pilot vehicles (18.8.5) was in the dataset the whole time. A BLOCKER THAT WAS A WRONG CITATION IS NOT A GAP IN THE STATE'S DOCUMENTS. WHAT WAS CHECKED AND NOT ADOPTED: MCA 61-10-102(6)(b) was verified directly and it is ONLY a definition — "‘Flag vehicle’ means a vehicle equipped as required by law or by department of transportation rule to warn or guide vehicular traffic. When not being operated as a flag vehicle, signs must be removed." It is in the WIDTH section, it does not say who furnishes the vehicle, and it neither says "civilian" nor excludes a patrol car, so it is NOT cited here as proof the escort is civilian; ARM 18.8.511A and MDT's own restriction list carry that weight instead. And Montana Highway Patrol's hourly figures on dojmt.gov are RECRUITING PAYROLL — officer wage tables — not an escort tariff, and are not adopted at any figure. Carrier forums were searched for a contrary report and are silent on Montana: the one heavy-haul thread that names police-escort billing names Maryland, and the only Montana mentions are about private pilot-car certification. No forum post claims Montana bills a police escort.
No schedule exists — structural
NEBRASKA HAS NO LAW-ENFORCEMENT ESCORT TO PRICE. 408 NAC ch. 3 was read in full, including the §009 fee schedule: every escort it requires is a private escort vehicle on the carrier's account, the State Patrol appears in enforcement and road-hazard roles rather than as a provider of escorts for permitted moves, and the fee schedule — $15.00/$20.00/$25.00 single-trip, the continuous-permit ladder, the $250.00 Extra-Long Vehicle annual — contains no escort item of any kind. With no service there is no rate, which is the New Jersey and Kansas shape rather than a document we failed to find.
No schedule exists — structural
Nevada has no police escort rate because it has no police escort requirement to price. No provision in NAC 484D or NRS 484D mandates a Nevada Highway Patrol escort at any dimension or any weight. NAC 484D.640(12) is the only law-enforcement hook in the chapter, and it is a discretion to "coordinate additional utilities escorts and traffic control with the appropriate law enforcement agencies" over 17 ft wide on two or three lanes, over 19 ft on four or more, or over 16 ft high — coordination, not an officer escort. NAC 484D.670(5)(c) does confirm the Highway Patrol runs its own amber-light permit on the pilot car under NRS 484D.185, and publishes no price for that either. NAC 484D.500-695 and the reachable NRS 484D sections were read in full; dot.nv.gov and leg.state.nv.us were both unreachable from the researching network. Claims that every superload requires an NHP escort appear only on commercial permit-service sites and are not adopted.
No schedule exists — structural
NJDOT assigns only private escorts — "Only private escorts are assigned to permitted loads" — so there is no state police escort trigger and no rate. A Port Authority Police escort through Port Newark is arranged directly with PAPD and is not a state fee.
Charges exist, nothing published
NEW MEXICO AUTHORISES A FEE IN SO MANY WORDS AND STATES NO AMOUNT. 18.19.8.84 NMAC requires a police escort "for movement of structures or loads with a width of 20 feet or more" at DOT discretion and provides that "The DOT may ... charge a fee for the coordination and provision of police escorts" — an express power to charge, with no figure attached. 18.19.8 NMAC (effective 12 February 2016, last amended 1 June 2022) was read across its escort sections 18.19.8.80 to 18.19.8.86 and its fee provisions; the only dollar amounts in it are the $400.00 specialized-haul permit and the $100.00 per additional county. THE $300.00 PER DAY FIGURE IS NOT ADOPTED. Four commercial permit services quote it identically and it appears nowhere in 18.19.8 NMAC or on NMDOT's own permit pages — the Nevada precedent exactly, where a number that only resellers print is not a published rate.
Charges exist, nothing published
One of the three escorts over 16 ft wide must be a State Highway Patrol escort. The Highway Patrol publishes no hourly or per-mile rate; G.S. §143B-1729 requires only "a fee covering the full cost to administer, plan, and carry out the escort".
Charges exist, nothing published
The charge is "a fee covering the full cost to administer, plan, and carry out the escort within this state" and, although the statute directs DPS to adopt a schedule of fees, no hourly, mileage or fixed schedule is published.
No schedule exists — structural
OREGON REQUIRES NO POLICE ESCORT AT ANY DIMENSION, so there is no rate to publish and none is published. All thirty rules of OAR chapter 734 division 82 — "Variance Permits Issued for Non-Divisible Loads and Road Use Assessment Fees", 734-082-0001 through 734-082-0085, including 0021 on days of travel and peak traffic hours, 0035 "Pilot Vehicle(s)", 0060 "Chief Engineer’s Authority" and 0070 "General Permit Provisions" — were read in full and THE WORD "POLICE" DOES NOT APPEAR ONCE. ODOT’s Route Map 2 Legend (January 7, 2026) heads all four of its charts "Minimum PILOT VEHICLES Required" and names no officer; the Pilot Car Guide (May 2026) requires pilot vehicles, certified flaggers, traffic control and District approval across every district page and names no officer; and ODOT’s Oregon Superloads page requires a Traffic Control Plan that "shall include Oregon certified flaggers in conjunction with the carrier’s pilot cars". WHAT OREGON SUBSTITUTES IS MUTCD FLAGGING, in its own words at OAR 734-082-0035(9) [CORRECTED 2026-10-18 from "(10)": the rule as amended by DOD 1-2025, effective 2025-03-13, runs (1) to (9) and the flagging subsection is the last one. Read subsection by subsection off the Oregon Secretary of State OARD database.]: "Specifically identified locations may require additional precautions. Permits may specify locations that require certified flagging to be conducted. The flagging must be conducted in accordance with the standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as adopted in OAR 734-020-0005." The Legend names seventeen bridges and tunnels where "For permitted loads or vehicles over 12 feet wide, certified flaggers … are required at the locations shown below, or the Certified Rolling Stop method can be used. The Certified Rolling Stop method requires three pilot vehicles." Those flaggers are a real unpriced cost and they are a carrier-hired crew rather than a law-enforcement charge, so they belong on the civilian side of this module and not here. `escortRuleId` points at the widest published pilot-vehicle requirement — the rung above 16 ft, where a police escort would appear if Oregon had one — because there is no police rule in the Oregon dataset to point at, which is the finding.
Charges exist, nothing published
PennDOT publishes no numeric State Police escort rate — "State escort fees vary based on escort personnel status (e.g., overtime) and will be invoiced separately".
No schedule exists — structural
RHODE ISLAND'S POLICE ESCORT IS MUNICIPAL, ONE AGENCY PER TOWN ON THE ROUTE — the Virginia case. 290-RICR-40-00-1 §1.5.4 (periodic refile effective 4 January 2022) requires, for a building move, "Two (2) escorts ... with police escort from each city or town where move will travel", and the state manual it implements asks the applicant for "Confirmation from the local or state police, who will be in attendance for escorting move, for the safeguarding of traffic while building is being moved." There is no statewide schedule to quote and the regulation and manual were both searched for one: no hourly rate, minimum hours, officer minimum, mileage charge or cancellation fee appears in either, and the only fees in the scheme are the $20.00 trip fee, the $100.00 intrastate blanket and the divisible-load table capped at $300.00. A separate requirement at the same silence: "For vehicles over 9 feet wide which receive a permit, the owner must arrange with police officials to halt traffic on one end of the bridge before proceeding across the bridge."
Charges exist, nothing published
Neither the South Dakota Highway Patrol nor the Department of Public Safety publishes an escort fee schedule, hourly rate, mileage rate, administrative fee, minimum hours or cancellation charge for commercial motor carrier escorts. The Motor Carrier Handbook says only that "some permit applications require review by the Department of Transportation or the Highway Patrol" — a review of the APPLICATION, not an escort of the load, and ARSD 70:03:01:20 requires no law-enforcement escort at any width, length, height or weight. The escorts South Dakota does require are civilian pilot cars.
Charges exist, nothing published
TxDOT may require law-enforcement traffic control, sets no threshold that would let it be predicted, and publishes no officer rate.
Charges exist, nothing published
Utah publishes a real dimensional police trigger — R909-2-14 Table 3 requires "2 pilot escorts and at least 2 police escorts" over 20 ft wide on a freeway, 17 ft on a secondary highway, 175 ft long or 17 ft 6 in high — and no rate at all. R909-2 (all thirty-three sections), Utah Code §§ 72-7-402/404/406/407, three UDOT pages and the Utah Highway Patrol site were searched. R909-2-16(4)(e) says only "the permittee will assume all costs when a certified police escort or escorts are required", and R909-2-14(1)(c) puts the COUNT outside UDOT: "The number of police escorts required is determined by the Utah Highway Patrol." The $40.00 minimum UDOT does publish is for a DEPARTMENT employee and vehicle, not for police, and is itself a floor — "or the full cost ... whichever is greater".
Charges exist, nothing published
VERMONT CODIFIES THE CIVILIAN LADDER AND LEAVES THE TROOPER ENTIRELY TO THE PERMIT. 23 V.S.A. §§1400 and 1402 and Code Vt. R. 14-050-019 set the escort thresholds — 12 ft wide, 80 ft long, 15 ft of overhang, one escort vehicle each — and name no dimension or weight that requires a Vermont State Police escort; any VSP escort on a given load is a condition the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles imposes on that permit. No rate follows from that, and none is published: the statutory fees are the $48.00 single trip and the $135.00 blanket, and neither the statute, the rule, nor the DMV CVO permitting pages states an hourly figure, minimum hours, officer minimum, mileage charge or cancellation fee for a trooper.
No schedule exists — structural
Virginia does not have a state police escort rate. 24VAC20-82-60.B.9 requires written authorisation from LOCAL law-enforcement personnel for each locality on the route, negotiated and priced separately with every one of them. There is no published schedule to quote.
Charges exist, nothing published
Neither the Washington State Patrol nor WSDOT publishes an application fee, hourly rate, mileage rate, minimum hours, per diem or cancellation charge in the RCW, the WAC or their own FAQs. WSP's own answer to "When is an escort car required?" is "Please contact WSDOT".
Charges exist, nothing published
West Virginia publishes neither half of the question. The TRIGGER is a commodity test plus agency discretion rather than a dimension: 157 CSR 5 § 6.4.k requires police escort of "houses or other similar oversized structures that could cause significant disruptions to the normal flow of traffic", with "The Division of Highways shall determine the need for a police escort based on the information provided in the permit application and knowledge of the roads or highways being traveled." The RATE does not exist in published form — the West Virginia State Police posts no hourly, mileage, minimum-hours or per diem schedule on its site or anywhere in the Code of State Rules, and carriers coordinate directly with the local detachment or the municipal agency with jurisdiction. 157 CSR 5 was read in full.
Charges exist, nothing published
Wisconsin publishes the FORMULA and not the rate, which is a different finding from either of the other two kinds. Wis. Admin. Code Trans 320.05(1) lists the fee components — "(a) Duty hours. (b) Rate of pay. (c) Vehicle mileage. (d) Mileage rate. (e) Meal allowance." — and every input is set outside the published code: Trans 320.02(13) defines the rate of pay by "collective bargaining agreement or state of Wisconsin compensation plan", and (6)-(7) define the allowances by reference to the internal departmental manual TAM 8-6, obtainable only by writing to the Division of State Patrol. § 348.26(2) attaches no dimensional trigger at all — a traffic officer is required "whenever the officer or agency issuing such permit deems it necessary". The one fixed figure in the scheme is a $100 surcharge for cancelling with under 24 hours of notice (Trans 320.03(15)).
Charges exist, nothing published
CHECKED 2026-10-18, AND THIS ROW CHANGED KIND. It used to read "NOT CHECKED — a gap in our data rather than a finding about Wyoming", because the research run that produced the legal limits and fee schedule terminated partway through the fee section and never reached the escort rules. The escort section has now been read: WYDOT Motor Carrier Ch. 5 § 5-8(g)-(k), amended eff. 4/30/2025, and its CIVILIAN triggers are encoded in `WYOMING_ESCORT_RULES`. THE POLICE HALF IS A REAL "NOTHING PUBLISHED" FINDING RATHER THAN AN UNREAD ONE. § 5-8 sets no dimension at which the Highway Patrol itself escorts a move; it publishes an untriggered discretion twice — "WHP may require additional escorts depending on load width" (g) and "The OWL may require additional escorts depending on load restrictions" (k) — and no hourly, mileage, minimum-hours or per diem schedule appears anywhere in the chapter or on the Patrol's own site. Chapter 5 § 5-6(c) separately makes the applicant pay "the cost of sending personnel to accompany load movement" above 250,000 lb, which is a departmental escort charge with no published rate. So neither the trigger nor the rate exists in published form, and `wy-police-escort-requirement-open` keeps the question OPEN rather than letting Wyoming fall into the confirmed-none column.