CDL's for Farmers, Nationwide???

[jackson33]

In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment, and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).

 

(It is also important to note here that DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council. A powerful group whose members have ties to George Soros and The Center For American Progress.)

 

The move by the DOT appears to be “legislation through regulation.” By reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Vehicles, the federal government will now be able to claim regulatory control over the estimated 800,000 farm workers in America, at the same time, overriding the rights of the states.[/Quote]

 

http://patdollard.com/2011/07/dot-to-mandate-all-farm-vehicles-require-cdl-licenses-could-bring-demise-to-farmers/

 

The full proposal;

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/31/2011-13035/regulatory-guidance-applicability-of-the-federal-motor-carrier-safety-regulations-to-operators-of

 

I really don't like starting threads, but if this proposal takes effect, not only are all "State Rights" subject to Executive Regulation", but Congress will become a simple nuisance to the King, oops, I meant President. Think about it, a Farmer that may not even have a drivers license, will be required to obtain the same CDL, over the road truck drivers are required and having driven plenty of those trucks, that's not always easy to get. 20/20 eyesight and a physical every two years, just a couple things, not to mention being 18 years old...Since a Federal Regulation, it will also require Federal Enforcement, of course at tax payers expense.

 

Any comments?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The CDL exception is handled by states, not the federal government; the government would merely require the states to enforce rules differently. The federal government would not gain regulatory control over 800,000 farm workers, since it is merely forcing consistent state regulation, not performing direct regulation itself.

 

The current CDL exception applies to farmers using farm equipment to transport their goods within 150 miles of the farm, not to merely operate their farm equipment on their own property. Hence the quote stating that the DOT "wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment" is false. The DOT wants new standards that would require all operators of farm equipment traveling on public roads to transport their goods to markets or other farms to obtain a CDL. That is significantly less onerous.

 

(Note: this is all taken from reading the Federal Register link you posted.)

[jackson33]

CR; Very Good, I should have read the proposal, as well. Your saying the article and proposal do not blend, but are you using the "Legal Authority" section to determine? If so it's the extensions of that authority could lead to what the article suggest. I read through the Article Comments and they apparently do not read it as you, however I didn't see any references, other than the proposal.

 

Anyway, I see no reason the DOT has for regulating Farmers within any State, for any reason and IMO the obligation of the Congress if authorized by the Constitution, it is not IMO.

[ewmon]

The dangers of working/living on family farms are known:

• grain bin/silo suffocations,
  
• manure pit anoxic asphyxiations,
  
• PTO amputations/scalpings/deaths,
  
• tractor roll-over deaths,
  
• falls from hay lofts,
  
• etc.
  

and yet, they continue to happen, and they're particularly tragic when children, sometimes small children, are the victims. Family farms are not as well-regulated as "industrial farms". Family farmers have a tendency to use old equipment, to [try to] repair their own equipment, to use equipment improperly, etc. The unknowing public may lament that industrial farms are edging out "cute" family farms, but the family farms are killing family farmers and their families.

[jackson33]

And simply children living in most any US City is safer??? I don't think so and I did work on a farm when 12 and 13 and learned a lot. Yes I drove a tractor and the truck as hay was being loaded. Work ethics are established at younger ages IMO, but the underlying the point is, does the US Federal Government have any right telling any farmer in any of the 50 States, what they can or can't do.

Edited August 5, 2011 by jackson33

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

CR; Very Good, I should have read the proposal, as well. Your saying the article and proposal do not blend, but are you using the "Legal Authority" section to determine? If so it's the extensions of that authority could lead to what the article suggest. I read through the Article Comments and they apparently do not read it as you, however I didn't see any references, other than the proposal.

 

Anyway, I see no reason the DOT has for regulating Farmers within any State, for any reason and IMO the obligation of the Congress if authorized by the Constitution, it is not IMO.

There is no "Legal Authority" section. There is, however, a "Legal Basis" section, which says:

 

The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (74, 49 Stat. 543, August 9, 1935) (1935 Act) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for (1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).

 

This stems from Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce, as explained by various judicial decisions outlined in the Distinguishing Between Intra- and Interstate Commerce section:

 

For example, in one of the scenarios, grain is transported from farms to an elevator in the same State. Although no truckload or shipment is earmarked for any particular out-of-State purchaser, all of the grain is intended to be shipped to points outside the State. The grain is graded, tested, and blended at the elevator and then shipped to out-of-State points during the year following harvest. Under this scenario, the movement of the grain to the elevators is considered interstate commerce (40 FR 50671, 50674; October 31, 1975; copy in docket). Here, the intent of the farmers (whether or not explicitly articulated) was to have their grain shipped out of the State of origin in order to obtain the best price. The grain therefore remained in the stream of interstate commerce until it reached its destination.

 

This clearly does not extend to the use of, say, a farm tractor to spread fertilizer on a field, since the tractor is neither engaging in commerce (it is not transporting goods to market) or traveling between states. The Federal Register article does not suggest that such a thing should happen, so I don't know why we'd be talking about farm safety when this is about farm equipment traveling on roads.

[jackson33]

I just read the "extension for comment", to August 1st, which in passing, heard something earlier on Fox Business today, validating the Blaze article. The emphasize portion below, indicates to me State MVD's (most States, the State Police), will do the enforcement for the ICC, much as State weight stations currently operate, but the regulation would be the same for all States.

 

 

 

distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce in deciding

whether operations of commercial motor vehicles within the boundaries

of a single State are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations; (2) proposed guidance on the relevance of the distinction

between direct and indirect compensation in deciding whether farm

vehicle drivers transporting agricultural commodities, farm supplies

and equipment as part of a crop share agreement are subject to the

commercial driver's license regulations; and, (3) proposed guidance to

determine whether off-road farm equipment or implements of husbandry

operated on public roads for limited distances are considered

commercial motor vehicles. The Agency indicated the guidance would be

used to help ensure uniform application of the safety regulations by

enforcement personnel, motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle

drivers.[/Quote]

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-01/html/2011-16548.htm

Edited August 5, 2011 by jackson33

[ewmon]

And simply children living in most any US City is safer??? I don't think so and I did work on a farm when 12 and 13 and learned a lot. Yes I drove a tractor and the truck as hay was being loaded. Work ethics are established at younger ages IMO, but the underlying the point is, does the US Federal Government have any right telling any farmer in any of the 50 States, what they can or can't do.

I also do not readily see why the feds are getting involved, and the same could be said about many intra-state matters that the feds have under their control.

 

The idea is that a 16yo boy who slipped off the back of a tractor, where the PTO proceeded to tear off both of his arms, could have been avoided. The idea that a 7yo girl is shot dead as an innocent bystander in an urban drive-by gangsta shooting could also have been avoided. However, it seems much easier to avoid a negligent/reckless act than to avoid a wanton criminal act.