For some truck drivers, every work shift has become a race against the clock. New federal regs decree that their shifts end 14 hours after they begin no exceptions. And private fleets could be particularly hard hit.
Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
The minute a truck driver slides behind the wheel, the race against the clock is on. As the day progresses, each tick of the dashboard clock becomes a relentless reminder that the shift ends exactly 14 hours after it began, no timeouts allowed. It hasn't always been that way. Prior to Jan. 4, when the new hours-of-service (HOS) regulations kicked in, drivers had the flexibility of using mid-day breaks to extend the on-duty period if events weren't unfolding according to schedule. But those days are over.
Nobody's exempt from the new rule. Giant truckload carriers, independent owner-operators, regional LTL haulers, for hire carriers and private fleets … all must comply with the new hours-of-service regulations. Aimed at preventing accidents caused by driver fatigue, the rule represents the first major revision to the hours-ofservice regulations in six decades. Under the new system, drivers are limited to a maximum of 11 hours of driving in a 14- hour shift (in contrast to the former 10 hours of driving within a 15-hour shift). A shift cannot begin unless the driver has taken at least 10 hours off, and each shift must be followed by at least another 10 hours off. Drivers may not drive after being on duty for 60 hours in a seven-consecutive- day period or 70 hours in an eight-consecutive- day period. The on-duty cycle may be restarted once a driver has taken at least 34 consecutive hours off duty.
The regs may apply to all, but their effects on different types of operations vary widely. Hardest hit of all may be some of America's private fleets, the trucking operations that exist primarily to haul freight for their parent companies. Today, private fleet vehicles are a common sight on the nation's highways as they go about their day delivering everything from snack foods to kitchen cabinets to customers and hauling raw materials like flour and vegetable oil to company plants. Certainly they're logging plenty of road time: Private fleets account for approximately 53 percent of all the U.S. miles traveled by medium- and heavy-duty trucks, according to the National Private Truck Council (NPTC).
But they're also logging plenty of time off the road, which is why they sometimes find themselves running up against the new HOS limits. Private fleet drivers typically do much more than just haul goods from point A to point B; many of them carry out a number of non-driving duties as well— loading and unloading, setting up customer displays or even performing installation work. Now, under the new HOS rule, those time-consuming tasks are suddenly on the clock.
That seemingly minor wrinkle has major implications for, say, route drivers who make multiple delivery stops. "My gut tells me that local distribution people have been hardest hit," says Richard P. Schweitzer, general counsel for the NPTC. "They don't get the benefit of the 11-hour rule, but they're hit by the 14-hour daily limitation. That's mitigated by the 34-hour reset. A number of companies have said they had to hire drivers and put on additional equipment. Some large companies have said they have to hire hundreds of additional drivers."
Yet not all fleets are feeling the pain. Garry Petty, president and CEO of the NPTC, emphasizes that the effects of the HOS rule on private fleets vary widely, depending on the nature of the operation. Some fleets, he says, have noticed only a nominal impact. Others have reported that the time limits are putting pressure on fleet capacity, forcing them to reconfigure some of their routes or add equipment. Yet others have found the regs so onerous that they're actually considering outsourcing some of the non-driving functions, he adds.
And a few lucky fleets will find the new regs work to their advantage. Some linehaul operations, for example, are finding the rule can actually improve driver productivity because it allows an additional hour of driving compared to the previous rule (which allowed only 10 hours of driving in a 15-hour shift). "For those over-the-road operations, the 11 hours has been a benefit," says Schweitzer. "For everyone, the 34- hour reset has been a tremendous benefit. It allows you to start a new week after a couple of days off."
almost touched by an angel
The debate over the hours-of-service rule took an ugly turn last October, when postal authorities in Greenville, S.C., discovered a letter addressed to the Department of Transportation that contained a metal vial of the deadly poison ricin. Only days later, postal authorities intercepted a similar letter containing the poison addressed to the White House. That letter threatened to turn Washington, D.C., "into a ghost town" if the new rule went into effect. Neither letter reached its addressee.
The first letter's writer, who claimed to be an owner of a tanker fleet, demanded that the rest time in the hours-of-service rule be reduced to eight hours from 10. The writer claimed to have access to large amounts of castor pulp—the source of ricin—and threatened to start dumping if the rule was not changed. The letter was signed "Fallen Angel." (The Center for Disease Control explains that ricin is part of the waste mash produced when castor beans are processed to make castor oil. It can cause death within 36 to 72 hours of exposure.)
The Postal Service, the FBI and the DOT's inspector general have offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever sent the letter.
Dock around the clock
Some operations may have benefited from the new regs. But many more are chafing under the restrictions, which are forcing them to find ways to reduce the amount of non-driving time logged by drivers. "The biggest effect on both shippers and carriers is that it makes every hour important," says Schweitzer. "You can't waste time sitting around waiting to load or unload, and you can't take time to rest unless it's in a sleeper berth."
For a lot of fleet operators, that raises the delicate question of how to coax their customers to shake their old habits and find ways to get the drivers in and out quickly, regardless of when they show up. "That's one of the issues I hear about a lot," Petty says. "Distribution centers—the customers where many of these trucks are going—have to change and be more accommodating in terms of access.We are in a 24-7 market. We can no longer afford bankers' hours for opening and closing DCs."
But not all fleets are waiting around for their customers to fall into line; they're taking things into their own hands. Schweitzer reports that many companies are already reviewing and altering their loading, unloading and dispatch procedures. "You want to make sure you get your driver out and home again, or at least to a safe place," he says.
Schweitzer also notes that he's seen renewed interest in drop and hook operations, in which the trucker picks up one trailer while leaving another behind at the shipping or receiving dock for the customer to load or unload at its convenience. Trouble is, that requires a lot of equipment. While added demand may be good news for trailer manufacturers or lessors—though one trailer manufacturer says it hasn't shown up in sales numbers yet—it translates into added costs for fleet operations already strapped for cash.
Mission accomplished?
Still, the question remains, have the new regs accomplished their original mission of improving safety? Ironically, though the HOS restrictions were intended to minimize fatigue-related accidents, the push to stop work 14 hours after a shift begins could have the opposite effect. Schweitzer reports that a number of NPTC members who attended the group's safety committee meeting in February voiced concerns that the rule was forcing drivers to rush during the day. "It used to be that if you were up against the rule on the way home, you could rest for an hour or two and then come in after 15 hours." Now, drivers must finish their shift 14 hours after starting and cannot count rest periods as time off. "They see that as a real safety issue," Schweitzer says.
And highway safety isn't the only concern. Some council members whose route drivers are responsible for tasks like setting up displays at customer sites worry that the drivers may be rushing through the job, resulting in injuries and an increase in workers' compensation claims, he adds.
In the end, issues like these will likely be resolved back at fleet headquarters, not in Washington, D.C. With little prospect of legislative relief, managers are reconfiguring routes, reassigning drivers and taking a hard look at their operations. "Maybe it requires going back and correcting dispatch, but that's costly," Schweitzer says.
In the meantime, the NPTC has gone into overdrive with efforts to help its members adjust to the rule, issuing almost weekly notices explaining the rule's particulars and discussing how they'll be enforced. In addition, the council has organized a number of open forums and teleconferences. The regs and their effects on costs and operations will also be a major topic of discussion at the NPTC annual meeting in Atlanta next month.
What might have been
Despite concerns like these, most fleet managers see the final rule as a big improvement over what might have been. Petty says the final regs, which were announced a year ago, revised in the fall and implemented in January, are infinitely preferable to draft regs floated in 2000. Those draft regs, for instance, regulated drivers' hours in five different categories. "That was complete insanity," Petty says.
That doesn't mean that everyone is satisfied. "I'm not saying everyone is happy with the outcome," he says. "That's particularly true for companies that have built quality-of-life features into the work schedule—a shower, a nap. Those companies feel that those perks not only enhanced the drivers' quality of life, but also served to promote safety. Those companies are not particularly happy. The rule is compromising their ability to do those sorts of things."
managers' ed
Anyone who watches late night TV knows that aspiring truck drivers can enroll in driver training school. But where do managers go for training? One option is the Internet. Last fall, the National Private Truck Council (NPTC) launched an online training program for private fleet managers. Courses offered through the Fleet Learning Center, as it's called, provide the background needed to attain the trade group's Certified Transportation Professional designation.
The courses, which allow enrollees to work at their own pace, were developed by NPTC Educational and Training Consultant Tom Moore and an advisory board that included industry experts and professional practitioners, NPTC says. They are divided into five modules: fleet finances; safety, security and compliance; equipment and maintenance; operations; and human resources.
The Fleet Learning Center was funded for NPTC by International Truck & Engine Co. and Idealease of North America.
Registration for the courses is $150 for NPTC members and $250 for non-members. To learn more, visit www.fleetlearningcenter.org.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."