By TIM THORNBERRY
Kentucky Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The move by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to seek guidance on a number of agricultural transportation issues has created confusion and worry among the agriculture industry and its supporters.

The comment period closed last week, but there is much anticipation of just what recommendations will come of this, if any.
The request for comments posted on the Federal Register concerned three specific areas; “previously published regulatory guidance on the 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; 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 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.”

Many in Congress have voiced disapproval of proposed regulations. Sen. John Hume (R-S.D.) sent a letter signed by nearly two dozen of his colleagues to FMCSA Administrator Anne Fero opposing any new regulations related to this comment request.

A statement released from Hume’s office noted the senators’ opposition “regarding proposed federal regulations that could subject farmers and ranchers who operate farm equipment on public roads to the requirements of a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), including acquiring additional documentation, maintaining health records and travel logs and complying with driving age restrictions.”

Hume said the action was yet another federal government solution in search of a problem. “The existing framework set forth by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 currently allows South Dakota to decide how to best regulate the movement of agricultural equipment on our roads,” he said.

“Farmers and ranchers moving equipment and hauling grain, livestock or other agricultural products relatively short distances should not be forced to comply with the same regulations as commercial truck drivers who oftentimes haul freight thousands of miles. Our farmers and ranchers do not need more federal regulations piled on their operations that would add costs, restrict the movement of agricultural equipment and complicate hauling their crops and livestock to market.”

The letter stated: “Farming can certainly be a dangerous occupation and we strongly agree that safe transportation of agricultural equipment on roads and highways is of utmost concern. However, it is our collective opinion that the FMCSA proposed rule changes would provide no quantifiable benefit; but only serve to excessively and unnecessarily overburden U.S. agriculture producers who are already strained by cumbersome federal regulations.”

Some of those who joined Hume in his letter of opposition included Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
A statement from Fero before the comment period ended Aug. 1 noted the request was a measure of safety: “We’re well aware of the concern within the agricultural community regarding these three issues.

“The comment period is an opportunity to bring those concerns to the table. We’re eager for input and ideas about how we can achieve our safety mission without tying America’s farmers down with unnecessary burdens.”

She said the agency was not proposing new regulations for the farming community.

Elizabeth Jones, the director of Congressional Relations with the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the FMCSA request had caused much confusion within the farming community. She noted the government was seeking proposed guidance in these issues, not regulations. The meaning of guidance is at the center of the confusion.

Jones also said the FMCSA has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, but this is intrastate commerce. She said the federal agency can say these guidance requests are not regulations but if states adopt and enforce the suggestions, they become regulations.

“The agency gives out money for highway safety efforts in the states. They put forth enforcement guidance that the state enforcement agencies can choose to follow and it is at the state’s discretion. Now, they may have money withheld, but it is at the state’s discretion,” Jones said.

She added the request for comments was about guidance currently on the books. Many laws date back decades, aimed at regulating agriculture transportation and equipment. But in many cases exemptions exist or the regulations have just largely gone unenforced.

“In current law farmers have exemptions from hours of service operations within a certain radius of their farms, as well as CDL requirements. That is based on stipulations within the law, Congress has seen fit to give farmers those exemptions, and they have been on the books for a number of years,” Jones said.
The latest request for comments stems from actions across the country. In Illinois, officials began to enforce a regulation stating those involved in crop-share programs were subject to commercial transportation regulations.

Another issue came from Pennsylvania, where officials were trying to place regulations on tractors and those driving tractors, including log books and a requirement that only those 18 years and older could operate the vehicles.

Jones said when state budgets get tighter, her agency begins to see more states enforcing these older regulations. “So, this is about revenue generation. It’s not about safety,” she said. “Farmers have multiple reasons to keep their equipment safe. I don’t think the FMCSA was prepared for the level of anger that was out there about this.”

She said she has tried to explain to the DOT that it, as an agency, may see this action as guidance which states can pick up or not, but farmers are under tremendous regulatory pressure already from other agencies and it adds another layer and expense affecting other issues – like the ability to hire labor.

Jones pointed out an instance in Kansas in which the state tried to enforce a law that dates back to the 1970s, that stated anything related to moving agriculture commodities was considered interstate commerce. The Kansas Farm Bureau became involved, prompting one board member to calculate the cost per farmer to comply with such a regulation. The final tally was approximately $6,000 per year per vehicle. That estimate included only trucks, not tractors or other farm vehicles.