PDA

View Full Version : Comment on Fed hauling restrictions



Beverley
Jul. 25, 2011, 08:24 PM
Apologies if this is a duplication of info, but a foxhunting friend just sent this link to me and comments are due by August 1. I have not read the regs yet, just posting this news article link for general info. But, if as article suggests, licensing requirements might happen for those hauling 16 ft or longer trailers- well, it could apply to horse haulers and horse and hound haulers too. And the thought that a farmer taking a tractor down the road might need a CDL strikes me as a bit much. But again, I don't know all the facts and haven't read the proposed regs, hoping collective research and wisdom will kick in.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_b4d19624-a1f2-57b8-9194-35fe00e17403.html

manentail
Jul. 27, 2011, 09:55 PM
This needs bumped. Do people not realize this will put an end to a lot of horse shows?

sk_pacer
Jul. 27, 2011, 10:27 PM
I wonder if the citiots realise this also affects them? A 16' trailer puts the kaibosh on Joe Blow hauling his boat to the lake or his camper trailer down the road to the park. Anyone with a motor home would also be subjected to the commercial licence regulations.

They tried it on for size here too, and it didn't get past the lobby group hearing what else would have to bo under the same strictures. When they heard their recreation vehicles could and would be affected, they went away.

subk
Jul. 27, 2011, 10:55 PM
I found this which gives more information about commenting:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2011-0146-0357
and this,
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2011-0146-0001

Every time the federal government passes a new regulation someone looses a job(s) and someone else doesn't create new jobs. Would someone please inform the Obama administration that we currently have an unemployment problem here in the U.S.?

Guilherme
Jul. 27, 2011, 10:57 PM
This has come up two or three times in the last 10 years or so and has always gotten rejected because it would adversely affect a huge number of people. Right now the target in on agriculture, but you can bet it will shift if this happens.

Many more folks will be caught in the net. Not just RVers, riders, boaters, etc., but also a vast number of trademen and workers who use a trailer to move the tools of their trade (roofers, contractors, etc.). Many of these people do not have, and currently do not need, a CDL or any sort of "enhanced" license.

I understand the "alphabet soup's" desire for some sort of regulation as there are lots of wrecks with people who don't know how to drive a trailer. But if you look at the rules for CDL operation it will put a lot of folks out of business.

And isn't that a fine idea with unemployment running at 9%++??? :mad:

G.

subk
Jul. 27, 2011, 11:02 PM
Can anybody find the proposed regulation?

The best I can tell in the call for comments is that it might effect horse trailers as an "implement of husbandry," but I can't find the definition of an "implement of husbandry."

Bluey
Jul. 27, 2011, 11:09 PM
There is this big elephant in the room everyone is trying to tiptoe around and not talk about.

This president, from the first days in office, put in place many "czars" that he nominate without anyone getting to check their background and object.
Several of those came from strong anti business, anti energy development, anti agriculture and especially anti animal agriculture backgrounds, from animal rights groups.

Those czars were put in positions of great influence, as head of regulatory agencies.
Many see them as a fifth column, doing easy work and not making many waves, bidding their time in offices like transportation, the EPA and other critical places.

What many are fearful is that, once this president gets reelected, those czars will get a free hand to make the changes they want, to change the social and economical order we have and in general all our society, they have been quoted on record indicating that they think it needs changing.

Part of the changes could be putting everyone and everything under more government control, regulating everyone to death, real death when it comes to animal agriculture and most any use of animals by making the regulations impossible to abide by, like this one and way too burdensome water and dust regulations and so many ways to keep chipping at our ability to stay in business or even live as free people, without a government looking over our shoulders at every step.

No one dares speak up, because this may not happen, we hope it doesn't.
No one likes to be wrong and/or be seen as an alarmist.

Still, every one of those moves regulators are making now keep adding nails in the coffin, burdening business with more and more restrictions, if by purpose or happenstance, the last hard to believe, compromising our ability to conduct business as we have.

Will the changes be good or bad?
Well, it depends on what you want out of your life, if you want your government to determine every little bit you can and can't do, much more than it does now and to what extent.

We are sitting ducks for what the government may want to do, all we can do now is don our tin hats and hope we are wrong, that all those regulatory changes that have been sneaking up on us and many more we are hearing about won't come to happen, to stifle what we can do, that lets us be such a productive and innovative nation.
That clearer heads, once they have been in the real world of how economies work for a bit, won't go there.
Unintended consequences will be easier to foresee by those now in those power positions.
Maybe once the bigger picture is seen by those in charge, that will stop them before they do too much damage.

There is a fine line between regulating a bit for the common good and overregulating to the point everyone's hands are so tied no one can get their job done efficiently.

As someone said, do we really want to try to make our world perfect at the cost of who we are and what we have accomplished.
Would it be worth living in that kind of world, if it was even achievable?

As for the horse industry as we know it, it is on it's way out, I think.
The economy doesn't seem to be getting strong enough to have a large enough base of people that can support a substantial horse hobby.
Without them, we will be down to, as in other places, a rare few that can have horses and the rest confined to paying for rides at riding centers or dude ranches.
We are already entering that transition, slowly. Will it accelerate, or maybe the economy will yet again improve and we will have a reprieve for a bit longer?

Now, this is not directed at this administration.
They are the result of the world they inhabit, just as everyone is.
They happen to be where they are now, could be any one other there.
The trends of what is happening are out there in the general population, but the players are interchangeable.

Again, hoping to be wrong there also, that the brave new world won't come to be quite yet.
Crystal balls are so unpredictable, are they.
On the other hand, they were right on some that happened, like where animal rights groups are today, scarily right.

It will be interesting to see where we are in a handful of years.

Beverley
Jul. 28, 2011, 12:34 AM
There is this big elephant in the room everyone is trying to tiptoe around and not talk about.

This president, from the first days in office, put in place many "czars" that he nominate without anyone getting to check their background and object.
Several of those came from strong anti business, anti energy development, anti agriculture and especially anti animal agriculture backgrounds, from animal rights groups.



Actually, Bluey, I am happy to confront your issue, because the concern you raise, which was raised when the 'regulatory czar' with the animal rights ties was nominated, is unfounded. The Executive Branch cannot just make up regulations. They have to be promulgated as specifically directed by laws passed by Congress. So no one person, not even the President, can roll out of bed and say 'hey, let's write some new regulations today.' And, as is the case here, put out for public review and comment.

As to a link to the regs, they would be in the original Federal Register notice from May that is referenced in the link provided by subk. If you go to the Federal Register web site you can bring it up using the citation (which is the volume followed by 'FR' and then the last set of numbers is the page number):

"On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31279), FMCSA published a notice requesting public comment on: (1) 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; (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."

Might also be useful to look at the law that provides the basis for the regs and make comments on whether the regs do or don't meet intent of law.

Bluey
Jul. 28, 2011, 12:43 AM
Actually, Bluey, I am happy to confront your issue, because the concern you raise, which was raised when the 'regulatory czar' with the animal rights ties was nominated, is unfounded. The Executive Branch cannot just make up regulations. They have to be promulgated as specifically directed by laws passed by Congress. So no one person, not even the President, can roll out of bed and say 'hey, let's write some new regulations today.' And, as is the case here, put out for public review and comment.

As to a link to the regs, they would be in the original Federal Register notice from May that is referenced in the link provided by subk. If you go to the Federal Register web site you can bring it up using the citation (which is the volume followed by 'FR' and then the last set of numbers is the page number):

"On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31279), FMCSA published a notice requesting public comment on: (1) 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; (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."

Might also be useful to look at the law that provides the basis for the regs and make comments on whether the regs do or don't meet intent of law.

Right, that is the way it is supposed to work, but ask any lobbyist about that.;)

What you present there was first proposed to calm very valid concerns about that one fellow's nomination. The reality, we won't know until and if it happens.

Lobbyists would not need to spend all that special interests money there if that process was so clear cut.:no:

The dealing and wheeling that goes on would make a horse trader blush.:lol:

Have you followed the battle with the EPA and dust, excuse me, particulate matter regulations lately?:eek:

Seriously, I did say that is not apt to happen for several reasons, but one of them is that many are watching for it, very carefully, but surprises may still happen here and there.

Guess that history will tell.:yes:

Beverley
Jul. 28, 2011, 12:49 AM
Bluey, yes, I follow lots of regulation battles, get paid to do it much of the time. And having been in the gov't since the Ford administration, can tell plenty of tales about the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Just saying that the conspiracy theory about the 'regulatory czar' did not take into account the specific details of the position. Similar to the 'BLM rounds up horses in secret' hoopla.:winkgrin:

Point of my thread is, here are some proposed regulations that affect the agricultural community, including haulers of horses, and we would do well to engage in the process and comment.

Bluey
Jul. 28, 2011, 12:53 AM
Bluey, yes, I follow lots of regulation battles, get paid to do it much of the time. And having been in the gov't since the Ford administration, can tell plenty of tales about the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Just saying that the conspiracy theory about the 'regulatory czar' did not take into account the specific details of the position. Similar to the 'BLM rounds up horses in secret' hoopla.:winkgrin:

Point of my thread is, here are some proposed regulations that affect the agricultural community, including haulers of horses, and we would do well to engage in the process and comment.

And my response is, again, we better not assume too much is set in stone.
Trade-offs happen all the time, you ought to know that, to get done what someone wants done and not be who did it.
Par for the course, if you have been working the halls.

I agree, comment indeed.:yes:

Belg
Jul. 28, 2011, 09:52 AM
Farmers already operate in the red by & large. I'd imagine this will be the proverbial bullet for a large number of them.

That's about as far as I can go without going on a long-winded rant about collectivism, entitlements, laziness, greed, and fiscal incompetence.

Ayn Rand had it right: "I recognize the right of no one to one minute of my time or one ounce of my labor" Probably slightly misquoted, but from the Fountainhead.

cssutton
Jul. 28, 2011, 01:41 PM
Actually, Bluey, I am happy to confront your issue, because the concern you raise, which was raised when the 'regulatory czar' with the animal rights ties was nominated, is unfounded. The Executive Branch cannot just make up regulations. They have to be promulgated as specifically directed by laws passed by Congress. So no one person, not even the President, can roll out of bed and say 'hey, let's write some new regulations today.' And, as is the case here, put out for public review and comment.

As to a link to the regs, they would be in the original Federal Register notice from May that is referenced in the link provided by subk. If you go to the Federal Register web site you can bring it up using the citation (which is the volume followed by 'FR' and then the last set of numbers is the page number):

"On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31279), FMCSA published a notice requesting public comment on: (1) 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; (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."

Might also be useful to look at the law that provides the basis for the regs and make comments on whether the regs do or don't meet intent of law.

EPA
FCC
FAA
US Wild Life
DOT
FDA
ATF

And that dearest of all, the IRS

And whoever it is that sets fuel mileage standards. I forget who.

All have the power to make regulations that have the force of law. Congress can't stop them without changing the laws that created them, which they have been reluctant to do.

There are limits, but the limits are being pushed daily.

So combined with the power of executive orders, don't dismiss it.
CSSJR

coloredcowhorse
Jul. 28, 2011, 02:45 PM
I wonder if the citiots realise this also affects them? A 16' trailer puts the kaibosh on Joe Blow hauling his boat to the lake or his camper trailer down the road to the park. Anyone with a motor home would also be subjected to the commercial licence regulations.

They tried it on for size here too, and it didn't get past the lobby group hearing what else would have to bo under the same strictures. When they heard their recreation vehicles could and would be affected, they went away.

Sent an e-mail to the writer of the article in Billings, MT and got some interesting info. It does NOT effect recreational vehicles so the diesel pusher and the motor home and the boat trailer will continue to cruise right on down the road without a CDL being required. It COULD effect horse transport if one is raising horses....any trips to vet, farrier, trainer, shows could be construed as efforts to increase the market value of a farm product (horse).....the feds are suggesting that the INTENT to sell across a state line is enough to make a "product" come under interstate transportation regulations even if the selling point is geographically within the same state...so for instance, hauling a horse to Reno to the Snaffle Bit Futurity sales and providing a coggins and health certificate and brand inspection forms required for interstate transport would prove my INTENT to sell interstate even if the sale actually occured in NV.....gotta love the governments ability to read minds now. Interestingly....he pointed out that it has been the state depts of motor vehicles that have requested this to be studied by the feds...hmmmmm...since the states get the licensing fees (and ticket income) this kind of makes. I read through about 5-6 pages of the 84 or so of comments and there is a LOT of negative (almost 100% from the sample I read) from farmers and ranchers.

Guilherme
Jul. 28, 2011, 05:15 PM
Congress can stop any regulation by saying "you may not spend any Federal money enforcing this regulation or performing that activity." This is how equine slaughter in the U.S. was ended. There is, presently in force, a prohibition on spending any Federal money inspecting horse meat (thank the Red Queen for this one). If the meat is not inspected it can't be sold. Voila, the trick she is done. ;)

Federal Regulations must be promulgated IAW the Administrative Procedure Act. That requires notice and a period for public comment. That Act was passed in 1946 and there may be agencies that are not governed by it that have their own “administrative rules.” Proposed changes in the Regulations under the Horse Protection Act were recently discussed here. The public comment period was as prescribed in the Act. An agency may extend the period for comment but may not shorten it.

The formulation of Regulations is, in fact, more complex. It can begin with a statute that assigns responsibility for enforcement of an Act to a Federal Department and establishes any guidelines to be followed. Or it may come from a Department that notes a problem under its general statutory mandate. Or it might come from the Executive Branch via a Department addressing what it perceives to be a problem. Or a Congressional Committee might request a Department look into some problem. Or other inputs might trigger action by a Department. ALL roads, however, require compliance with the APA.

IIRC there are some “emergency” powers that can be exercised but they are narrowly construed and usually have strict time limits for either their “regularization” through the APA or they “sunset.”

A proposed regulation is often drafted with input from the industry to be regulated. This is only common sense as, more often than not, the real technical expertise resides in private industry. Often this is balanced by inclusion of input from academic institutions, “activists,” other governmental agencies, etc. Any industry looking at a Federal regulatory effort is going to employ lobbyists to attempt to influence the process. They would be idiots if they didn’t; and such efforts are protected by the First Amendment.

Put another way, not every regulatory effort is a Grand Conspiracy! ;)

Departments can also functionally modify a Congressional Act. Under the HPA it’s unlawful to exhibit a horse with scars that might indicate it’s been sored. Under the Regulations of the USDA a “Scar Rule” has been promulgated which, in effect, says that certain scarring is not disqualifying. It’s a straight up limitation of a Congressional mandate. It’s been in effect for at least three decades. Everybody seems to live with it. I guess if a group was to take the USDA to court over it a Federal judge would get to rule on it. I don’t know that this has ever happened (but then I don’t know all the litigation history of the HPA).

The growth of the Fourth Branch of government (the bureaucracy) can and should concern folks who value their civil rights. I guess this is just another example of the truth of the old saying that “The Price of Liberty is Constant Vigilance.”

G.

sk_pacer
Jul. 28, 2011, 09:45 PM
Sent an e-mail to the writer of the article in Billings, MT and got some interesting info. It does NOT effect recreational vehicles so the diesel pusher and the motor home and the boat trailer will continue to cruise right on down the road without a CDL being required. It COULD effect horse transport if one is raising horses....any trips to vet, farrier, trainer, shows could be construed as efforts to increase the market value of a farm product (horse).....the feds are suggesting that the INTENT to sell across a state line is enough to make a "product" come under interstate transportation regulations even if the selling point is geographically within the same state...so for instance, hauling a horse to Reno to the Snaffle Bit Futurity sales and providing a coggins and health certificate and brand inspection forms required for interstate transport would prove my INTENT to sell interstate even if the sale actually occured in NV.....gotta love the governments ability to read minds now. Interestingly....he pointed out that it has been the state depts of motor vehicles that have requested this to be studied by the feds...hmmmmm...since the states get the licensing fees (and ticket income) this kind of makes. I read through about 5-6 pages of the 84 or so of comments and there is a LOT of negative (almost 100% from the sample I read) from farmers and ranchers.

Here, the gov't decided that if such measures were to be implemented, they were not going to target just agriculture, and said everyone would suffer the same fate. These same bozos that lobbied for commercial also made a bid to have the driver of any trailer longer than 36' acquire an air ticket (separate here from commercial) and they got the same thing: would be also applied to recreational vehicles, regardless of air brakes actually being used or not. Haven't heard a peep out of them for more than 10 years now.

clanter
Jul. 28, 2011, 10:02 PM
Guess that history will tell.:yes:

State's Rights’ vs. Federal Rights‘... wasn't that one of the issues of the Civil War?

gieriscm
Jul. 29, 2011, 11:38 PM
Can anybody find the proposed regulation?

The best I can tell in the call for comments is that it might effect horse trailers as an "implement of husbandry," but I can't find the definition of an "implement of husbandry."
That's because it varies by state - see page 9-11 of the proposed rules at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/rulemakings/notices/Agriculture-Regulatory-Guidance.pdf.