TruckDisp Load Planning and Optimization Flashcards

A dispatcher has a 48,000 lb load of steel coils destined for Detroit, but the route passes through Ohio, which enforces a strict 80,000 lb gross vehicle weight limit. The tractor weighs 18,500 lb and the trailer weighs 14,200 lb. The shipper wants to add 2,000 lb of secondary cargo. What should the dispatcher do?

Answer: Decline the addition — adding the secondary cargo brings gross weight to 82,700 lb, exceeding the 80,000 lb federal and Ohio limit

Tractor (18,500) + trailer (14,200) + steel coils (48,000) + secondary cargo (2,000) = 82,700 lb, which exceeds the 80,000 lb federal gross vehicle weight limit enforced by Ohio. There is no automatic 10% tolerance for GVW — permits are load/route-specific and must be pre-arranged, not assumed. The dispatcher must decline the addition as configured or reroute and obtain a proper overweight permit before any cargo is added.

When building a multi-stop LTL consolidation load, a dispatcher notices that Stop 3 cargo (rear of trailer) has a higher freight class than Stop 1 cargo (nose). The load is weight-legal but the center of gravity will shift forward of the trailer's kingpin. What is the PRIMARY operational risk the dispatcher must address?

Answer: Steer axle overloading, which can cause loss of vehicle control and violates federal axle weight limits

When cargo weight is concentrated at the nose (forward of the kingpin), the steer axle bears disproportionate weight, potentially exceeding the federal 12,000–20,000 lb steer axle limit depending on configuration. Steer axle overload is a safety-critical violation — it impairs steering responsiveness and braking. While fuel burn and freight class are relevant concerns, the PRIMARY risk is a regulatory and safety violation from axle overloading, not an administrative or commercial issue.

A dispatcher is planning a load that crosses from a state with a 105,500 lb gross weight limit (operating under the Interstate Commerce Commission exemption corridor) into a neighboring state with a standard 80,000 lb limit. The load is 97,000 lb gross. What is the correct planning approach?

Answer: The load requires a state overweight permit only for the portion of the route within the standard 80,000 lb state — the dispatcher must obtain it before dispatch

The higher weight tolerance (e.g., 105,500 lb) applies only within the designated corridor state. When the route crosses into a state with a standard 80,000 lb limit, that state's rules apply within its borders. The dispatcher must obtain a state overweight permit for the segment through the 80,000 lb state before dispatch — driving without it is a violation regardless of origin-state permissions. There is no speed-based weight tolerance provision in federal or state law.

A truck dispatcher is optimizing a round-trip lane between two distribution centers 600 miles apart. Outbound loads average 42,000 lb at $2.80/mile. Return loads average 28,000 lb at $1.95/mile. Fuel cost is $0.48/mile (both directions). Which metric BEST reveals whether the return lane is being underutilized relative to its cost contribution?

Answer: Revenue per hundredweight (CWT) on the return lane relative to its weight utilization percentage

Revenue per CWT (revenue ÷ hundredweights) measures how efficiently each unit of weight capacity generates revenue, exposing whether the return lane is generating proportional value for the weight it carries. The return lane carries 67% of the outbound weight but earns only 69% of the outbound rate per mile — a surface-level comparison. However, revenue per CWT isolates whether low-weight return loads are priced appropriately for their capacity consumption. Deadhead % is irrelevant if the truck is loaded; load-to-truck ratio is a market metric, not a per-lane efficiency metric.

A hazmat load of flammable liquids (UN1203, PG II) is being planned through a tunnel that prohibits Category D hazmat. The only alternative route adds 190 miles. The shipper is pressuring dispatch to use the tunnel, claiming the placards 'just need to be covered.' What is the dispatcher's correct action and legal basis?

Answer: Agree to the alternate route and bill the additional miles — placarding cannot be removed or covered to bypass routing restrictions

Under 49 CFR §172.502, hazmat placards cannot be obscured, removed, or covered to misrepresent a load's hazard class — doing so is a federal violation carrying civil penalties up to $84,425 per violation. Tunnel routing restrictions are based on the actual hazard category of the cargo, not the visible placarding. Packaging Group II flammable liquids are legitimately restricted from Category D tunnels. The dispatcher must reroute and bill additional miles — shipper pressure does not create a legal exemption.

During load planning for a flatbed shipment of construction equipment, a dispatcher calculates that securing the load per the North American Cargo Securement Standard requires 8 chains rated at 5,400 lb WLL each. The driver reports only 6 chains are available on the trailer. The shipper offers to substitute the 2 missing chains with nylon straps rated at 7,200 lb WLL each. Is this substitution compliant, and why?

Answer: No — the substitution is non-compliant because the number of tie-downs required is based on load weight and length, not aggregate WLL alone, and the cargo type may require chain specifically

Under FMCSA 49 CFR Part 393 Subpart I, the number of required tie-downs is determined by cargo weight and length — not simply aggregate WLL. Additionally, certain cargo types (particularly heavy construction equipment on flatbeds) may require chain specifically due to cargo securement category rules that specify tie-down type, not just strength. Substituting 2 of 8 required tie-downs (a 25% reduction in count) is non-compliant regardless of the individual WLL of the substitutes. The dispatcher must delay the load until compliant securement equipment is available.