Possible CDL to drive a combine!!
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34537
Printed Date: 06 Aug 2025 at 4:58am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Possible CDL to drive a combine!!
Posted By: steve(oh)
Subject: Possible CDL to drive a combine!!
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 6:00pm
|
I know they weigh alot but they are going about 25 mph. I have worked on a farm my whole life. Most farmers have there kids help move equipment. Now the dad or mom is going to have to move equipment by themselves? Also as a farmer you can get a farm CDL for ur semi already, will that be allowed for this. How are they going to enforce it our goverment already is in debt, are we going to waste more TAX PAYERS money haveing DOT cars or highway patrol cars out on back raods looking for the farmer, or are we going to keep them on the interstate were the traffic is? http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/Possible_Transportation_Changes_for_Farmers_126104363.html?ref=363 - http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/Possible_Transportation_Changes_for_Farmers_126104363.html?ref=363 |
Replies:
Posted By: WhiskeySup
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 7:12pm
| It's interesting that the article doesn't mention who is sponsoring that bill or is it just another example of beurocratic(sp?) strong arming? What ever happened to the "Will Of The People"? |
Posted By: dadsdozerhd5b
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 7:16pm
|
funny thing is that they do not require a cdl to drive a fire truck but they want farmers to have them to drive a combine? crazy country. anyone can join a fire dept(local volunteer) and drive a 75000# fire truck without a special license. no cdl required. alot of stations police themselves and have training on the apparatus before they allow people to drive them but not all. think about it, fire trucks are heavier than a normal size truck, speeding to put out the fire and an everyday person at the wheel. i always pull over for that reason alone. not picking on firemen, alot of respect there and i did it for 17 years but some laws are just silly. ------------- HD5B, HD5G, (2) FARMALL A's, CUB. DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, IGNORE THE LAUGHTER. FLANNEL IS ALWAYS IN STYLE. |
Posted By: Breeze
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 7:18pm
| I know several guys that have ag licenses but to make a farmer need a cdl is just ridiculous. To many politicians with too much time on their hands. |
Posted By: Brian Jasper co. Ia
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 7:27pm
------------- "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford |
dadsdozerhd5b wrote:Posted By: jnicol6600
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 7:43pm
|
It is silly to have to have a cdl for a tractor or combine.
I just wish they could do something about the crazy mexicans driving school buses loaded with melons going 40+ mph on the gravel past my house.
Cdl to get out on the big road with a semi full of grain? Why not.
|
Posted By: dave63
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 7:56pm
|
Some States require CDL for Fire Apperatus. When I lived in Pa all That i needed was a Letter from the Chief that said i was Quilafid. I moved To Md and needed CDL.
If you drive a Commercial vehical that does not fit in the class like a Truck and tag along trailer that is over 10000# but no air brakes you need a special class A CDL for that rig. So a Combine that weighs over 26000 would need a class B CDL and if you have a Combine and not a truck i guiss you take the Combine to take the test???
The polatition that wants to put this bill through should give himself another raise or something. I can't contain myself.LOL ------------- The universal answer to all questions is yes, how much do you want to spend? |
Posted By: MilesGray (CO/KS)
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 8:08pm
|
When I was in College, many moons ago, I was on the Volunteer Fire Department. I was able to drive all the equipment if necessary, the only time I got to drive it was in parades. Because I was... nevermind, this would get into a Shameless type story... LOL! ------------- Miles Gray (CO/KS) 5 1938 B's, 1940 B, 1944 WF C, 1948 NF C, Gleaner A, White Top Rotobaler, 1957 IH Golden Jubilee... I'm either a collector, or crazy! |
Posted By: D17 owner
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 8:40pm
| I dont agree with the CDL for combines. However I think they should have one for farm trucks. The problom we have here by me is that farmers are getting them for silage trucks they dont know nothing about them. If it starts it is ready for the field. That fine but when you put a high school kid in it and put him on the highway that My wife drives on with my two little kids in the car. |
Posted By: Dave in il
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 8:58pm
|
The past couple years farmers have to have a CDL and DOT# for trucks only used from field to the local grain elevator because grain at the local elevator goes on to other destinations including out of state, this makes the farmer part of interstate comerce (never mind that the farmer has sold the grain before it leaves the elevator) this is why the man in the article was talking being responsible for the final destination of his steers. This doesn't increase saftey in any way but it does generate revenue. There is no need demonstrated for additional regulation on farm equipment operation. No studies or statistics cited. The idea is just a trial balloon and if it isn't shot down there is a TON of revenue available.
|
Posted By: Protrucker
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 9:07pm
|
What about the once a year vacationer, or worse yet "Joe Retiree" (old, declining reflexes & response time) that decides to go out & buy a humongus fifth wheel RV, then go down the highway at ridiculous speeds with only a regular license?
|
Posted By: MUM FARMER
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 9:14pm
| Communisim!!! socialisim!!! unbeliveable its sad but we are NOT going to wake up as a nation are we??? allow all this crap who dreams this stuff up??? pretty soon we will have shoe police to see if are shoes are tied before we go outside. pathetic |
Posted By: Dave in il
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 9:32pm
| I don't have issues with the CDL as a matter of fact some things I'd like to see incorporated into all drivers liscence, like only having one liscence and such. Wouldn't mind if everybody had to prove they knew the basics about operating a motor vehicle and were healthy enough to drive. LOL. That said I beleive the majority of accidents between farm equipment and cars usually involve the car driver going to fast or trying to pass in an unsafe situation. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 9:33pm
|
Ron Paul is the only possible way out of this mess we are in. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: JohnCinMd
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 9:41pm
Bingo! "Revenue" is it. The states and feds are looking at anything they can tax or regulate to generate money. It's only going to get worse.
|
Posted By: MUM FARMER
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 9:45pm
| Amen Lonn if you have watched his interviews and debates forget which party he is from it doesnt matter he will do his best to uphold the constitution and that is all we need from politions he is the only shot we have to keep this republic but we all no it wont happen it is sad. |
Posted By: Auntwayne
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 9:49pm
| Dave, you are absolutely correct about the car trying to pass because they are impatient, last week, correct me if I am wrong, but, in the north east, a car tried to pass a spray rig on a blind curve, and, killed how many people ??? |
Posted By: MUM FARMER
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 10:01pm
| Guy was drunk in car and forced a van into an oncoming tractor killing 5 on the scene and injuring 8 driver of car was fine the people were amish on a tour of different farming operations in new york state |
Posted By: steve(oh)
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 10:16pm
| I was talking to m buddy about it and I started thinking about this. I am in school for diesel and ag mechanics, if you work on a semi and then go and test drive it you have to have a CDL. If this was passed and say you had your own shop and you got done with a repair would you have to have a CDL to go drive that tractor or combine to make sure everything was ok? Because if you do not only are every farmer going to have to get a CDL but every mechanic that works on ag equipiment will as well. |
Posted By: jhid
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 7:28am
|
im pretty sure a mechanic should be fine ------------- red and green are nice for christmas, but orange is all year round http://www.canadianantiquetractor.com/tractorforum/ |
Posted By: Jim Lindemood
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 7:53am
| I have to oppose this --- It isn't about safety -- it's about revenue. It is one more obstacle for the small farmer. Requiring a CDL to move a hay rake and baler down the raod to another field is crazy. Looks like this is in VA - but folks need to pay attention iand let their elected officials know that this should not happen. |
Posted By: jhid
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 10:19am
|
they should make a special licence for people from the city if they want to drive in a farming area. That would make it safer ------------- red and green are nice for christmas, but orange is all year round http://www.canadianantiquetractor.com/tractorforum/ |
Posted By: John WV
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 10:39am
| the CDL to run a tractor on the road TELLS THE STATE THAT KNOW HOW TO DEFEND YOUR SELF FROM FLYING OBJECTS. I have had people threw bottles and cans at me while they pass me on the road and even they flip me the bird |
Posted By: Rawleigh
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 11:19am
|
Here is the link to comment. The comment period ends on August 1, so hurry. In the middle bottom of the first screen click on "Regulations with comments periods ending soon", the click on "Closing within 7 days", go to the bottom of the screen and click on "Submit a comment" in the section on farm vehicles. http://www.regulations.gov/#%21home - http://www.regulations.gov/#!home |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 1:41pm
|
Comment period closed end-of-June, so it's a little late now... But read the conclusions indicated after "GUIDANCE": ------------------------------------------------------------- Applicability of the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Rules to Farm Vehicle Drivers Operating Under a Crop Share Farm Lease Agreement Under the Agency's CDL regulations, persons who operate a CMV, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, in interstate or intrastate commerce are required to have a CDL. However, a limited exception is provided for drivers of farm vehicles (49 CFR 383.3(d)(1)). A State may, at its discretion, exempt drivers of farm vehicles that are: (1) Controlled and operated by a farmer, including operation by employees or family members; (2) Used to transport agricultural products, farm machinery or farm supplies to or from a farm; (3) Not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; and (4) Used within 241 kilometers (150 miles) of the farmer's farm. The exception is limited to the driver's home State unless there is a reciprocity agreement with adjoining States. It has come to FMCSA's attention that States may be taking varied approaches in interpreting the meaning of ``common or contract motor carrier'' as it relates to farm vehicle drivers operating under a crop share agreement and, as a result, may be applying the CDL exception inconsistently. As background, it is the Agency's understanding that in a crop share arrangement, land owners generally rent out or lease their farm land to a tenant. The tenant agrees to pay the landlord a share of the crops grown on the leased lands as rent. This rent, i.e., a portion of the crops, may be paid in a series of installment payments. The parties agree that each will provide certain items of equipment, materials, and labor, and pay a share of the expenses to run the farming operations. The tenant agrees to use the land for agricultural purposes only, and to farm the land in accordance with proper farming practices. The parties will share in the decision making and management of the farming operations to the extent set out in the lease. The landlord has a lien on the crops as security for the rent payable under the lease. In most cases, it appears that the share cropper transports the landlord's portion of the crops to market in his or her own CMV and is indirectly and implicitly compensated for this service in the form of a reduction in the landlord's share in the crops produced. The FMCSA believes that the reference to ``operations of a common or contract carrier'' in the CDL exception (49 CFR 383.3(d)(1)(iii)) is clear. Given the information FMCSA has received about the varied interpretations of this phrase as it relates to crop share arrangements, however, it acknowledges that there may be uncertainty about how the phrase applies in the context of a crop share arrangement. As a result, FMCSA requests public comment on this issue. Specifically, FMCSA seeks information on the following questions: How many States have exercised the discretion provided by 49 CFR 383.3(d)(1) to include in their State CDL regulations an exception for farm vehicle drivers? For States that have opted to include the farm vehicle exception in their State CDL laws and regulations, how are States interpreting the CDL regulations as they relate to farm vehicle drivers working in a crop share agreement? Do these States construe these regulations to make farm vehicle drivers working in a crop share agreement contract carriers? If so, what evidence are States reviewing to make the determination that a farm vehicle driver working in a crop share agreement is or is not operating as a contract carrier? Is the Agency's understanding of the crop share agreement accurate? What types of compensation arrangements exist between farm vehicle operators providing transportation services as part of a crop share agreement and their landlords? Implements of Husbandry This third issue arises from the fact that while a number of States exempt ``implements of husbandry'' from their vehicle safety regulations, there is no single, uniform definition of the term. For example, one State defines an implement of husbandry as farm equipment that is equipped with pneumatic tires, infrequently operated or moved on highways and used for the benefit of the farmer's agricultural operations to perform agricultural production or harvest activities or transport agricultural products or agricultural supplies. Implements of husbandry can also be earthmoving equipment used in farming operations. Farm tractors and combines are typical examples of what would be considered to be implements of husbandry. Another State's regulations explain that implements of husbandry include farm implements, machinery and tools, as used in tilling the soil, including self-propelled machinery specifically designed or adapted for applying plant food materials or agricultural chemicals but not ``designed or adapted for the sole purpose of transporting the materials or chemicals.'' The State provides a list of examples: Subsoilers, dozers (provided they are for farm use), cultivators, farm tractors, reapers, binders, combines, cotton module builders, planters, and discs. In this example, the State's rules explain that implements of husbandry do not include automobiles, trucks, or items used on the farm such as irrigation systems, silos, barns, etc. The FMCSA believes the experience of State agencies in dealing with implements of husbandry suggests that FMCSA should consider new regulatory guidance to emphasize a practical approach for applying the safety requirements under 49 CFR parts 390-399 to agriculture, rather than one derived from strict, literal readings of the definitions of ``commercial motor vehicle'' and ``motor vehicle'' under 49 CFR 390.5. Based on those definitions, almost any type of self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce is subject to the FMCSRs if the threshold for weight, passenger-carrying capacity, or amount of hazardous materials is reached. This is especially the case when the definition of ``motor vehicle'' is considered, which includes ``any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used upon the highways. * * *'' (See 49 CFR 390.5) A narrowly literal reading would mean applying the rules in circumstances where they would be impractical and produce no discernible safety benefits. The FMCSA provides an example of a practical alternative approach in the existing regulatory guidance concerning off-road construction equipment. Questions 6 and 7 from 49 CFR 383.3 and Questions 7 and 8 for 49 CFR 390.5 from the 1997 Federal Register notice (62 FR 16369, 16406) are reprinted below. Sec. 383.3 Question 6 and Sec. 390.5 Question 7: Does off-road motorized construction equipment meet the definitions of ``motor vehicle'' and ``commercial motor vehicle'' as used in Sec. Sec. 383.5 and 390.5? Guidance: No. Off-road motorized construction equipment is outside the scope of these definitions: (1) When operated at construction sites; and (2) when operated on a public road open to unrestricted public travel, provided the equipment is not used in furtherance of a transportation purpose. Occasionally driving such equipment on a public road to reach or leave a construction site does not amount to furtherance of a transportation purpose. Since construction equipment is not designed [[Page 31282]] to operate in traffic, it should be accompanied by escort vehicles or in some other way separated from the public traffic. This equipment may also be subject to State or local permit requirements with regard to escort vehicles, special markings, time of day, day of the week, and/or the specific route. Sec. 383.3 Question 7 and Sec. 390.5 Question 8: What types of equipment are included in the category of off-road motorized construction equipment? Guidance: The definition of off-road motorized construction equipment is to be narrowly construed and limited to equipment which, by its design and function is obviously not intended for use, nor is it used on a public road in furtherance of a transportation purpose. Examples of such equipment include motor scrapers, backhoes, motor graders, compactors, tractors, trenchers, bulldozers and railroad track maintenance cranes. The FMCSA proposes to issue new regulatory guidance to address implements of husbandry, consistent with the approach used for off-road motorized construction equipment. The Agency requests public comment on this issue and the following proposal. Specifically, the Agency requests comments on whether there are specific examples of implements of husbandry that should be included in the guidance to assist the enforcement community and the industry in achieving a common understanding of how to apply the safety regulations. Proposed Regulatory Guidance: Applicability of the FMCSRs to Implements of Husbandry Sec. 383.5 Question 13 and Sec. 390.5 Question 33 Question: Do implements of husbandry meet the definitions of ``commercial motor vehicle'' as used in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5? Guidance: No. Implements of husbandry are outside the scope of these definitions when operated: (1) At a farm; or (2) on a public road open to unrestricted public travel, provided the equipment is not designed or used to travel at normal highway speeds in the stream of traffic. This equipment, however, must be operated in accordance with State and local safety laws and regulations as required by 49 CFR 392.2 and may be subject to State or local permit requirements with regard to escort vehicles, special markings, time of day, day of the week, and/or the specific route. Question: What types of equipment are included in the category of implements of husbandry? Guidance: The term implements of husbandry should be narrowly construed and limited to equipment which, by its design and function is obviously not designed or used to travel at normal highway speeds in the stream of traffic. Examples of such equipment include, but are not limited to, farm tractors, subsoilers, cultivators, reapers, binders, combines, cotton module builders, planters, and discs. Request for Comments FMCSA requests public comment on: (1) The distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce in making the determination whether certain transportation by CMVs, within the boundaries of a single State, is subject to the FMCSRs; (2) the relevance of the distinction between direct and indirect compensation in deciding whether certain farm vehicle drivers working under a crop share arrangement are subject to the Agency's CDL regulations; and, (3) the determination whether certain off-road farm equipment and implements of husbandry operated on public roads for limited distances should be considered CMVs and subject to the Agency's vehicle safety equipment regulations. The Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on June 30, 2011. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the ``Addresses'' section of this notice. The Agency will consider to the extent practicable comments received in the public docket after the closing date of the comment period. Issued on: May 20, 2011. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2011-13035 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 1:51pm
|
In a nutshell, the acid test for applicability, is wether the intended purpose for the machine in question, is transportation. You wouldn't load 100bu of grain into a combine and drive it to the market. You might have a hopper full of corn when you drive it out onto the road, but it's function is to harvest, not transport grain. You may be pulling three trailers of hay from the field to the barn, but the tractor's job is to work fields, pull ground-engaging implements, drive bailers, rakes, and conditioners. It isn't the tractor's purpose to be a road-train transporter. They DO raise a reasonable question about hazmat... a sprayer loaded down with pesticides can be a dangerous thing. A three-wheeled machine loaded with 46,000lbs of liquified manure, rolling down the highway at 50mph can be really dangerous. Is there reason to believe that requiring CDLs for these will actually improve safety? Not from what I see... these are hard-working people who have their lives and livelyhoods on the line every minute of planting, harvesting, and fieldwork seasons. The CDL required 11-hour day doesn't exist, because what they do CANNOT be done in an 11-hour on/10-hour off cycle. Mother Nature doesn't permit it. Other aspects of CDL requirement... physical exams, eye tests, logbooks... none are sensible in agricultural circumstance... when farmers aren't in good enough shape to continue working, they typically find out the hard way... But if you're a jobber who drives a grain semi for the local elevator, you're in a different category... transportation over highways is what you do. |
Posted By: Brian Jasper co. Ia
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 5:05pm
|
When I pulled up the link it was still open for comments. It did say that comments might take several months to be viewed because there could be thousands of comments. Thinking about the hours of service rule, makes me wonder if they're trying to unionize farmers. Unions did give us non self employed the 8 hour work day, but lets see how many farmers can get everything done limited to 11 hrs a day and 70 hours in 8 days. ------------- "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford |
Posted By: Rawleigh
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 5:28pm
| The comment period was extended until August 1. Get your comments in. |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 10:47pm
|
Hee hee... When dairy cows start keeping logbooks, dairy farmers will too. When hogs start feeding based on timeclock shifts, hog farmers will too. When God schedules rain in the hayfields based on workday intervals, farmers will mow and bale accordingly. Until then, hay is made when sun shines... tassles will get pulled at night, the calves will be pulled when they're damned-well-ready, and corn will be in by first snowfall. |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 3:06am
| in NE ya'll hafta have a CDL to drive a firetruck! |
Posted By: ky wonder
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2011 at 9:14am
|
this is ludicris, if it happens then we all should by an old gleaner and hit the interstate with them, they restrick farm implements now, but if i have to use my cdl to drive it then it must be a commercial vehicle that is allowed on the interstate
a fast combine f series caravan on I-40, between little rock and memphis, or on the beltway around dc and up pennsavania ave. would be something, i would love to drive in
------------- i like old tractors of all colors |
Posted By: Spud
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2011 at 6:10am
|
Ask and ye shall receive! Farmers run to government all the time to fix every problem, want profitable markets guaranteed, etc. then are surprised when they have too much government control in their lives! This is just one more example.
|