Farm equipment transport rules discussed

Load limits would be expanded for farm equipment haulers under legislation heard by the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee Feb 10.

LB1039, introduced by Fullerton Sen. Annette Dubas, would allow farm equipment dealers to designate commercial haulers as their agents when moving their equipment. Haulers would be required to carry documentation signed by the dealers identifying them as dealer representatives.

The bill also would permit commercial haulers to follow the same width, height and length restrictions reserved specifically for farm equipment dealers.

Dubas said she brought the bill because current regulations were created more than 50 years ago, when there were more farm implement dealers and only those dealerships had the equipment and expertise to move farm equipment.

“What the law did not consider was the instance where a farm equipment dealership enlists the help of a private hauler to move farm machinery,” she said.

Bobby Hoest of Daws Trucking in Milford testified in support of the bill, saying the different sets of load regulations that apply to commercial carriers and farm implement dealers create unnecessary confusion and delays.

“We didn’t really see why it would make any difference that a piece of equipment was on a truck owned by the equipment dealer or a truck owned by a commercial carrier,” Hoest said.

Because fewer implement dealers are available to move equipment, Hoest said, the bill would benefit both the equipment dealers and the haulers during peak seasons when equipment repairs and deliveries are numerous.

“We are just asking that you would level the playing field for the commercial carrier and the equipment dealer so we can be of more service to them,” he added.

State Department of Roads Director Randy Peters testified in a neutral capacity. He recommended that origin, destination and load description details also should be required on the authorization statement issued by the equipment dealer.

No one testified in opposition to the bill and the committee took no immediate action on LB1039.