New trucking rules have wide-ranging effects - The Packer

New trucking rules have wide-ranging effects

05/16/2013 09:57:00 AM
Vicky Boyd

As a result, Lund said he is working with the United Fresh Produce Association to put together an industry task force to try to address the issue.

The revised national hours of service regulation, expected to become effective July 1, would increase the amount of rest truck drivers would be required to take in many cases, said Steve Lohman, North American transportation manager for Chiquita Fresh North America, Charlotte, S.C.

Drivers who have put in 60 hours during seven consecutive days or 70 hours during eight consecutive days would be required to take off 34 consecutive hours before hitting the road again.

But those 34 hours now will have to include two periods between 1-5 a.m. — something that didn’t used to be required.

If a driver finishes in the morning, the rest period could extend to as long as 51 hours before he could legally climb behind the wheel again.

But if the driver doesn’t come off duty until the evening, the period could be as short as 34 hours.

In the case of Chiquita, Lohman said about 80% of the loads are picked up or delivered during the morning.

Lohman said he’d heard industry estimates the new rest provisions could extend overall trucking times by up to 10%. So he examined Chiquita Express’ routes, which included 48,000 loads last year, and found the impact would be about 12.5%.

The impact most likely will be felt more by long-haul routes, where drivers routinely max out allowable time on the road, Lohman said.

Although it’s too early to tell what impacts the revision will have, he said it could possibly cause freight rates to increase.

“It could mean more trucks and more drivers to move the same amount of freight,” he said.

This rule comes on top of existing driver shortages.

Lohman suggested working with your carriers to forecast your freight needs, which will help reduce spot-market capacity needs.

He also recommended making long-term commitments with carriers and exploring ways to consolidate loads with nearby shippers with similar loads and markets.

Prev 1 2 Next All

Comments (5) Leave a comment 

e-Mail (required)


characters left

Mike Loffredo    
Des Moines,Iowa  |  May, 17, 2013 at 09:23 AM

Looking like someday the government is trying to shut down America. Semi's run this country as far as transportation is involved. Can they really make this any more difficult then it already is? :(

nevada  |  May, 17, 2013 at 12:13 PM

funny how when you go to one of these ca. carb meetings they straight face lie and tell you the country is 80% compliant so they can't stop now there would be to many companys that would be upset. Nothing but lies about everything they say and do other than it's me not I'm just doing my job, even though they are promoting destroying folks that have worked very hard to build a business, which by the way they have no idea what that means because you actually have to work, I still am wondering if the carb folks understand that they are part of what is destroying our bill of rights

florida  |  May, 17, 2013 at 02:23 PM

I have to wonder who sponsors this legislation. Is this all about money to be made. Truckers have gone through this with their engine emissions in at least 2 stages, change then have to change again. Our tree huggers and nut groups particularly in CA. will cut emissions all right, they will also cut truckers delivering everything the people need to survive, and these same nuts will be the first to complain when they have no food on the table, either because no one will be able to afford to grow it, or to afford to by it. The other side is that the manufacturers need more sales so are they pushing these expensive new laws to further sales of their equipment? Like cash for clunkers did for GM Chrysler?

Midwest  |  May, 17, 2013 at 02:44 PM

It's not just the engines in reefer units -- it's also the engines in trucks, and tires on trucks and trailers too. It would have cost me a total of approximately $20,000.00 to make my truck compliant with California's draconian regulations -- and would only have been good for about another 3 years. I didn't haul enough freight in and out of there (10 or 12 loads a year) to make it cost effective for me to upgrade, so I don't go there anymore. If I lived in California (or operated sufficient miles there), there were programs giving grants and loans to upgrade equipment. This gives an unfair advantage over those who are out of state, non-compliant, and don't have the money lying around to upgrade. What I don't understand is, how can a state regulate interstate commerce that way? I was under the impression that the Federal Government was responsible for that. It is possible to obtain one (and only one) trip permit a year to go in and out with non-compliant equipment. California needs to either grant more trip permits, or back off these regulations for out-of-state trucks. td

boston  |  May, 23, 2013 at 08:43 AM

Looks like this, fuel cost, overall maintance cost going up like 200-300% and the new log book regulations coming up in July 1st is gonna finally break the little man in the transportation industry. Some one needs to find Jimmy Hoffa quick!

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight