Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Ag Law Harvest

All is quiet at the statehouse as the Ohio legislature continues its summer recess, but here’s our gathering of other agricultural law news you may want to know:

Does Roundup cause cancer?  A jury in California has determined that it’s possible.  The jury awarded $289 million last Friday against Monsanto in the first of thousands of cases alleging that Monsanto should have warned users about Roundup’s cancer risk.  The plaintiff argued that Monsanto has known for decades that the Roundup product could cause cancer but failed to warn consumers, while Monsanto claimed that more than 800 studies and reviews conclude that glyphosate itself does not cause cancer.   Monsanto plans to appeal the award.

Pursuing a Bill of Rights for Lake Erie.  The Toledoans for Safe Water submitted over 10,500 signatures last week on a petition proposing to amend the city’s charter to establish a bill of rights for Lake Erie.  The proposed bill of rights would state that Lake Erie and its watershed possesses a right to exist, flourish and naturally evolve; that the people of Toledo have a right to a clean and healthy Lake Erie, a collective and individual right to self-government in their local community and a right to a system of government that protects their rights; and that any corporation or government that violates the rights of Lake Erie could be prosecuted by the city and held legally liable for fines and all harm caused.  The effort is backed by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.  If successful, the initiative would appear on the November ballot for Toledo residents.

EPA ordered to ban the sale of chlorpyrifos.  The U.S. Ninth Circuit  Court of Appeals late last week ordered the U.S. EPA within 60 days to cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos, a pesticide first introduced by Dow and commonly used on crops and animals.  The court held that there was no justification for a decision by previous EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt refusing to grant a petition to ban chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that the pesticide can cause neurodevelopmental damage in children.  The court also discarded the agency’s argument that it could refuse to ban chlorpyrifos so based on a possible contradiction of evidence in the future.  Both actions, said the court, placed the agency in direct violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.  The highest uses of chlorpyrifos are on cotton and corn crops and almond and fruit trees.

Highest award in Smithfield nuisance litigation raises responses.   The third and largest jury award in a series of nuisance lawsuits in North Carolina yielded a $473.5 million award for plaintiffs claiming harm from hog farms owned by Smithfield.  The verdict will reduce to $94 million due to a state law that caps punitive damages.  Agricultural interests are claiming that the lawsuits circumvent state right to farm laws and are seeking state legislative responses.  Opponents are also hoping to reverse a gag order issued by the court to impose communication restrictions on potential witnesses, parties and lawyers in the cases.   The federal judge in the case, Hon. Earl Britt from the Eastern District of North Carolina, is stepping down due to health issues.  Hon. David Faber of the Southern District of West Virginia will replace Judge Britt and will soon hear a fourth trial that targets a 7,100 head hog farm in Sampson County, North Carolina.

It’s official: no reporting of air emissions from animal waste.   The U.S. EPA has posted a final rule clarifying that air emissions from animal waste at farms are exempt from federal regulations that require the reporting of air releases from hazardous wastes.  The rule implements an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and revisions in the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act enacted by Congress earlier this year.  We reported on the court case and legislation earlier this year.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under ag law harvest, Uncategorized

Did you know? Ohio’s agritourism immunity law extends to many farm-based activities

When you think of “agritourism,” corn mazes and hay rides may first come to mind.  While those activities can fall under Ohio’s definition of agritourism, you may be surprised to find that farm markets, you-pick operations, farm tours, wineries and other types of farm-based activities can also fit into the legal definition of “agritourism” in Ohio.  This definition is important for purposes of Ohio’s agritourism immunity law, which can protect agritourism providers from liability for harm incurred during agritourism activities.  The  law shifts the risk of liability from agritourism operators to the participants who willingly choose to engage in agritourism activities on a farm.

It’s important to understand that in order to receive the law’s liability protection, each of the following conditions must exist:

Conditions for immunity from liability

1.  Qualify as an “agritourism provider.”    The law specifically protects only those who are “agritourism providers,” which means someone “who owns, operates, provides, or sponsors an agritourism activity, or an employee of such a person who engages in or provides agritourism activities, whether or not for a fee.   An important term within this definition is “agritourism,” which means “an agriculturally related educational, entertainment, historical, cultural or recreational activity, including you-pick operations or farm markets, conducted on a farm that allows or invites members of the general public to observe, participate in, or enjoy that activity.”  This definition can include a broad range of activities, such as wine tastings, educational classes, corn mazes and other recreational activities, farm tours, and farm festivals.  Note, however, that the agritourism definition requires that the activity be on a “farm,” which the law further defines as:

  • At least ten acres of land (composed of tracts, lots, or parcels), that is used for “agricultural production,”  which means the land is used for “commercial aquaculture, algaculture, apiculture, animal husbandry, poultry husbandry; the production for a commercial purpose of timber, field crops, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, flowers, or sod; the growth of timber for a noncommercial purpose if the land on which the timber is grown is contiguous to or part of a parcel of land under common ownership that is otherwise devoted exclusively to agricultural use; or any combination of such husbandry, production, or growth; and includes the processing, drying, storage, and marketing of agricultural products when those activities are conducted in conjunction with such husbandry, production, or growth”
  • Or, less than ten acres of land if there is an average yearly gross income of at least $2,500 from “agricultural production” on the land.

2.  Post required signs.  Every “agritourism provider” must “post and maintain” warning signs in order to receive the law’s liability protection.  The purpose of this provision is to inform participants that they are voluntarily assuming the risks of many of the harms that are inherent to being on a farm.  The warning signs or sign templates are available through OSU Extension South Centers and Ohio Farm Bureau.  Each sign must:

  • Be placed in a clearly visible location at or near each entrance to the agritourism location or at the site of each agritourism activity;
  • Contain the following statement, in black letters measuring at least one inch high:

WARNING: Under Ohio law, there is no liability for an injury to or death of a participant in an agritourism activity conducted at this agritourism location if that injury or death results from the inherent risks of that agritourism activity.  Inherent risks of agritourism activities include, but are not limited to, the risk of injury inherent to land, equipment, and animals as well as the potential for you as a participant to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to your injury or death.  You are assuming the risk of participating in this agritourism activity.

Immunity from what?

The agritourism immunity law states that an agritourism provider is immune, or protected from liability, in any civil action for an injury to a person participating in the agritourism activity as long as that person was injured due to a “risk inherent in an agritourism activity.”  An “inherent risk” is a “danger or condition that is an integral part of an agritourism activity,” that would be difficult for an agritourism provider to completely minimize.  According to the law, “inherent risks” include:

  • The surface and subsurface conditions of the land;
  • The behavior or actions of wild animals not kept by or under the control of an agritourism provider;
  • The behavior or actions of domestic animals other than vicious or dangerous dogs;
  • The ordinary dangers associated with structures or equipment ordinarily used in farming or ranching operations;
  • The possibility of contracting illness resulting from physical contact with animals, animal feed, animal waste, or surfaces contaminated by animal waste;
  • The possibility that a participant may act in a negligent manner, including by failing to follow instructions given by the agritourism provider or by failing to exercise reasonable caution while engaging in the agritourism activity that may contribute to injury to that participant or another participant.

If a participant in an agritourism activity is harmed and sues the agritourism provider for injuries caused by any of the above situations, the law protects the provider from any liability or monetary responsibility for those injuries.  In addition, the law specifically states that an agritourism provider is not required to eliminate such inherent risks on the property.

Exceptions to immunity

Although the agritourism immunity law provides civil immunity under certain circumstances, the immunity is not absolute.  The law also states that an agritourism provider could be legally responsible for injury to a participant if the agritourism provider:

  • Fails to post and maintain signs (discussed above)
  • Acts with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant,
  • Purposefully causes harm to the participant,
  • Acts or fails to act in a way that constitutes criminal conduct that causes harm to the participant,
  • Has or should have actual knowledge of an existing dangerous condition that is not an inherent risk, and does not make the dangerous condition known to the participant.

Use the agritourism law to your advantage

Agritourism activities can provide many benefits, such as additional income and diversification opportunities for farmers, unique cultural and recreational experiences for farm visitors and education about agriculture.  But there are always liability risks to having people on the farm, which can impact a farmer’s risk exposure.  Take advantage of the agritourism immunity law by ensuring that the operation qualifies for its provisions and does not fall within any of the exceptions from immunity protection.  Even with this liability protection, however, operators should continuously assess the property for safety risks to minimize the possibility of visitor injuries.

The agritourism immunity law is in Ohio Revised Code section 901.80.  For further information, see our Agritourism Law Bulletin and a previous post, which also explain the agritourism law’s protections from county and township zoning for agritourism operations.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Legislators propose “Clean Lake 2020 Plan” funding to reduce Lake Erie phosphorus

A pair of companion bi-partisan bills just introduced in the Ohio Senate and Ohio House of Representatives would provide significant funding to help meet Ohio’s goal of reducing phosphorus loading by 20% in Lake Erie by 2020.  The sponsors of S.B. 299 are Senators Gardner (R-Bowling Green) and O’Brien (D-Bazetta) and Representatives Arndt (R-Port Clinton) and Patterson (D-Jefferson) are the sponsors of H.B. 643.  The legislation is a “targeted funding solution bill,” according to Rep. Arndt, “providing both [general revenue funds] and capital funding for a variety of strategies that scientists, Lake Erie advocates, agriculture leaders, and others believe can help achieve our phosphorus reduction goals.”

The proposed legislation includes the following:

  • A “Soil and Water Conservation Support Fund” of up to $3.5 million to support county soil and water conservation districts in the Western Lake Erie Basin for staffing and to assist in soil testing, nutrient management plan development that would also include manure transformation and manure conversion technologies, enhanced filter strips and water management.
  • A “Soil and Water Phosphorus Program” of up to $20 million, to be established by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to reduce phosphorus in sub-watersheds of the Western Lake Erie Basin. The bill requires that the programs be supported with the purchase of equipment for subsurface placement of nutrients into the soil; nutrient placement based on geographic information system data; soil testing; variable rate technology; manure transformation and manure conversion technologies; tributary monitoring and water management and edge-of-field drainage management.
  • $3.5 million for Ohio State’s Sea Grant—Stone Laboratory on Lake Erie to construct new research lab space and purchase in-lake monitoring equipment.
  • Up to $10 million for the Healthy Lake Erie Initiative to reduce open lake disposal of dredged materials into Lake Erie.

Both bills were immediately referred to committee, with proponent testimony heard before the Senate Finance Committee on May 15 and the House Finance Committee on May 16.  The Lake Erie Foundation, Nature Conservancy, Ohio Environmental Council, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Ohio Farm Bureau testified in support of the legislation.

The legislators also introduced Senate Joint Resolution 6 and House Joint Resolution 16 on May 9 that propose to submit a constitutional amendment authorizing the issuance of up to $1 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for the Lake Erie clean water improvements for voter approval at the November 6, 2018 general election.  The resolutions were also referred to the respective finance committees but were not on the committees’ recent agendas.

Read S.B. 299 here or H.B. 643 here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized

The Ag Law Harvest

Here’s our gathering of recent agricultural law news you may want to know:

Ohio court upholds conservation easement restriction.  In a battle over the future of a property subject to a conservation easement, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals has determined that   the easement’s restriction on subdivision of the 76-acre property is valid.  The easement requires that the property be retained forever in its natural and agricultural state and prohibits any subdivision of the property.   The lower court determined that the subdivision is an invalid and unreasonable restraint on alienation because it does not contain a reasonable temporal limitation, but the Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the property could still be sold and that the prohibition on subdividing the property was consistent with the purpose of the conservation easement.  See Taylor v. Taylor here.

First decision out in North Carolina nuisance lawsuits.  On April 26, 2018, a federal jury found that Murphy-Brown LLC created a nuisance for neighbors living near Kinlaw Farms in North Carolina, where Murphy-Brown raises up 14,688 hogs.   A subsidiary of Smithfield, the largest producer of pork in the world, owns Murphy-Brown LLC.   Neighbors of Kinley Farms brought the lawsuit in 2014, asserting that the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), with its open air lagoon, spraying of manure on nearby fields, and truck traffic, created “odor, annoyance, dust, noise and loss of use and enjoyment” of their properties.  The neighbors also claimed that boxes of deceased hogs and hog waste on the farm attracted buzzards, insects and vermin.  The jury found that Murphy-Brown substantially and unreasonably interfered with each of the ten plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property and as a result, awarded each plaintiff $75,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.  Since the initial jury decision, the amount of punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff has been diminished to $250,000 due to a state law limiting such awards in North Carolina.  Smithfield/Murphy-Brown LLC plans to appeal the decision.  Similar lawsuits brought by neighbors against hog operations in eastern North Carolina will be heard in the near future.  Several questions remain to be answered; one is whether Smithfield will be successful in their appeal.  Another question is whether this case and the other lawsuits will inspire similar lawsuits against large livestock operations in other states.

Monsanto loses challenge of California glyphosate listing.  A California Court of Appeals has held that the state may list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup product, as a probable carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65, which requires the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to list all chemical agents with a known association to cancer.  OEHHA based its listing on a 2015 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which stated that glyphosate was a “probable” human carcinogen.   Proposition 65 allows OEHHA to rely upon an IARC finding, but Monsanto argued that represented an unconstitutional delegation of authority to a foreign agency.  The court disagreed, ruling that OEHHA acted appropriately by relying on the IARC conclusion that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen.

National GMO Standard proposed.  On May 4, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) released the administrative rule it proposes to meet the 2016 Congressional mandate to develop a National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.  The rule would require that genetically modified or “bioengineered” food be labeled as such.  According to the AMS, “[t]he proposed rule is intended to provide a mandatory uniform national standard for disclosure of information to consumers about the [bioengineered] status of foods.”  The AMS is asking for interested parties to submit their comments about the proposed rule by July 3, 2018.

Industrial hemp bill on the move.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s federal legislation to allow states to regulate industrial hemp is gaining traction.  The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture is supporting the bill and encouraging Congress to “provide an opportunity toward full commercialization of this new crop opportunity for farmers.”

More on Arkansas dicamba ban.  In Arkansas, where the fight over the use of dicamba has raged for the past few years, the state Supreme Court has overruled several lower court judges’ rulings that certain farmers be exempted from the statewide ban on applying the volatile herbicide.  The Arkansas State Plant Board has banned the use of dicamba in the state from April 16 through October 31 of this year.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ag Law Harvest

Here’s our gathering of recent agricultural law news you may want to know:

  • The Ohio Department of Agriculture will hold a hearing on April 5, 2018 at 9 a.m. to receive testimony on proposed amendments to the Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program rules. The amendments are largely alterations of the format and structure of the rule to allow for easier reading, and do not impact the substance of the rule in many situations.  Two changes to the substance of the rules is the addition of a duty to prevent pollution from “residual farm products,” which means bedding, wash waters, waste feed, silage drainage and some mortality composting, and clarification of the investigation and enforcement process.  Read the ODA’s summary of the changes here.  Hearing information is here.
  • Considering solar leasing on your farm? If so, sit in on the Solar Leasing for Agricultural Landowners webinar on April 4 at Noon. The free webinar features our colleague Prof. Shannon Ferrell of Oklahoma State, who will remove some of the mystery of solar leasing for landowners.  More information is here.
  • Several groups have filed a lawsuit against the USDA for its March 12 withdrawal of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule finalized during President Obama’s tenure. The rule would have established animal welfare standards for organic producers. Read more about the organizations’ claims in this post by our Ag & Food Law Consortium partner, the National Sea Grant Law Center.
  • Another Consortium partner of ours, Penn State Law, has prepared a comprehensive summary of the current status and legal developments for the problematic Rover Pipeline that is affecting many landowners in Ohio and other states. The summary is here.
  • Ohio legislative activity:
    • The Apiary Immunity bill, H.B. 392, passed the Ohio House on March 21 and was introduced in the Ohio Senate on March 26.  The bill proposes limited liability for registered apiary owners.
    • Fedor (D-Toledo) and Rep. Sheehy (D-Toledo) introduced HCR 25, a resolution encouraging the U.S. EPA Administrator to declare the open waters of Western Lake Erie as impaired, consistent with the Ohio EPA’s recent water quality report we reported on earlier this week.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ag issues in the federal spending bill

Amidst a great deal of controversy, President Trump signed the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018” on March 23.  The omnibus $1.3 trillion spending package includes a number of provisions that affect agriculture, not all spending related.  One glaring omission from the bill that agriculture wanted, however, was language allowing the EPA to withdraw the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.  Otherwise, the new law contains fixes and clarifications for several key legal issues agriculture has faced in the past year and funding for important agricultural programs.

Section 199A tax deduction revised

Sellers of grain who were hoping to capitalize on the IRC § 199A 20% gross sales deduction when selling grain to their cooperative will be disappointed that the spending bill has removed the deduction and that the removal is retroactive to January 1, 2018.  Congress enacted new provisions that will address sales to cooperatives.  According to my colleague and tax expert Kristine Tidgren at Iowa State, “the cooperative patron is subject to a new bifurcated calculation and a hybrid 199A deduction. Essentially, the fix gives the cooperative patron a deduction that blends the new 199A deduction with the old 199 DPAD deduction (all within the new 199A). Depending upon their individual situations, cooperative patrons may be advantaged, disadvantaged, or essentially treated the same by selling to a cooperative rather than selling to a non-cooperative.”  Read more of Kristine’s analysis here.

CERCLA emissions reporting for livestock goes away

The spending bill incorporates provisions of the “Fair Agricultural Reporting Methods Act” proposed earlier by a bi-partisan group of Senators concerned about a court ruling that subjected farms to air emissions reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (explained in our previous post).  The EPA had delayed the reporting requirement to May 1, 2018.  The reporting mandate is removed under the new law, however, which states that air emissions from animal waste at a farm are not subject to CERCLA reporting requirements, nor are emissions from the application, handling or storage of registered pesticides.  A “farm” is an area used to produce crops or livestock that have a total value of $1,000 or more.

Electronic logging device rule further delayed

We’ve reported several times on the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) rule that would require commercial agricultural haulers to utilize electronic technology that automatically records hours-of-service data.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued several waivers that delayed the requirement.  The new spending bill effectively voids the ELD rule until September 30, 2018, by prohibiting the FMCSA from using its funds during that time to implement, administer, or enforce provisions regarding the use of electronic logging devices by operators of commercial motor vehicles transporting livestock or insects.

County-level ACRE pilot program to be established

The spending bill directs USDA to create a 2018 pilot program for county-level agriculture risk coverage (ARC) payments for the 2017 crop year.   Farm Service Agency offices in each State will have the opportunity to provide agricultural producers a supplemental payment to ensure that there are not significant yield calculation disparities between comparable counties in the State.

Rural broadband grant program funded

The law allocates $600,000,000 for the USDA to conduct a new broadband loan and grant pilot program under the Rural Electrification Act.  At least 90 percent of the households to be served by the project receiving a loan or grant under the pilot program must be in a rural area currently without sufficient access to broadband.

Conservation funding maintained

The spending bill maintains full funding levels for farm bill conservation programs and exempts farms participating in conservation programs from obtaining System for Award Management (SAM) and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) numbers.   The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative received $300 million to carry out activities that would support the Initiative and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including grants for research, monitoring, outreach, and implementation.

Research funding increased

In stark contrast to significant cuts proposed by the White House, the spending bill contains the largest increase in research funding in over a decade.  Research programs at the USDA would grow by $33 million, to $1.2 billion.  The funding includes a $25 million increase to a $400 million budget for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) established by the 2008 Farm Bill, surprisingly still $300 million shy of the 2008 Farm Bill’s proposed funding level.

Readers can dig into the 2,232 pages of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

March 18 might be new date for complying with Electronic Logging Device rule

Late last year, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a 90-day waiver to the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) rule for livestock and agricultural commodity haulers in response to a multi-party petition by agricultural groups.  The waiver is set to expire on March 18, 2018.   Agricultural groups are now awaiting the agency’s response to a second petition they’ve filed, which seeks another waiver and limited exemption from the ELD rule for agriculture before the March 18 waiver expiration date.  There is also talk that Congress will delay the ELD rule for agriculture, as proposed by H.R. 3282, but time is running out for a legislative fix.

The ELD rule, which became effective last December 18, requires commercial haulers to utilize electronic technology that automatically records hours-of-service (HOS) data rather than using the current practice of recording data on paper logs.  Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to adopt regulations requiring ELD use in commercial motor vehicles that are involved in interstate commerce and operated by drivers who are required to keep records of duty status (RODS).  The purpose of the rule is to create a safer work environment for drivers by making it easier and faster to accurately track, manage, and share the data.

The intent of the 90-day waiver for agriculture was to provide the agency more time to clarify the rule’s applicability to agriculture, which included considering agricultural exemptions from the rule.  Agricultural groups also asked the agency to review and clarify the HOS, RODS and Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) exemptions for agriculture.   While it hasn’t yet responded to the second petition to extend the ELD waiver, the FMSCA did recently provide additional explanations of the ELD rule’s application to agriculture, along with clarifications of HOS and CDL requirements.   The information is available on the agency’s website.

How does the ELD rule apply to agriculture?

Here’s a summary of the FMSCA’s explanation of how the ELD rule applies to agricultural situations:

  1. The following are “agricultural exemptions” from HOS regulations, which would also remove the vehicle or driver from the ELD rule:
    • “Covered farm vehicles,” which means vehicles that are:
      • Registered in a state with a license plate or other designation that allows law enforcement to identify it as a farm vehicle;
      • Operated by the owner or operator of a farm, or an employee or family member of the owner or operator;
      • Used to transport agricultural commodities, livestock, machinery, or supplies to or from a farm;
      • Not used in for-hire motor carrier operations;
      • 26,000 pounds or less and operating anywhere in the country, or 26,001 pounds or more and operated anywhere in the state of registration or operated across state lines within a 150-air mile radius of the farm.
    • Drivers who transport agricultural commodities, including livestock, live fish and bees, within a 150-air mile radius of the farm.
      • Once a driver operates beyond the 150-air mile radius, HOS regulations apply and the driver must use an ELD for movement beyond the 150-air mile mark.
      • Note that FMCSA has recently published proposed guidance on this exemption for vehicles traveling to pick up an agricultural commodity or returning from a delivery point and for trips beyond 150 air-miles from the source of the agricultural commodity. The proposed guidance is here.
      • Also note that drivers transporting commercial bees or livestock in interstate commerce are exempt from the HOS 30-minute break requirement when bees or livestock are on the vehicle.
  2. If a vehicle or a combination of vehicles (truck and trailer) has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), a gross combination weight rating (GCWR), a gross vehicle weight (GVW), or a gross combination weight (GCW) of 10,001 pounds  or more and the operation is not otherwise excepted as described above, FMCSA regulations generally apply to the driver but the driver is not subject to the ELD rule in the following situations:
    • A driver operates within a 100-air mile radius of the normal work reporting location and works no longer than 12 hours per day. This is the same exception that applies to preparation of a logbook.
    • A driver uses paper RODS no more than 8 days in any 30-day period.
    • A vehicle is older than model year 2000.
  3. Non-business related transportation of horses and other animals:
    • The ELD rule does not apply to the transportation of horses and other animals to shows and events, as long as the transportation is not business related or for-hire (even if prize and scholarship money is offered).
    • Note that FMCSA has recently updated its guidance for non-business related transportation of horses, available here.

What if the ELD rule applies to an agricultural situation?

Drivers who are subject to the new ELD rule must understand and be able to use ELDs by the required deadline, which FMCSA states includes knowing how to annotate and edit RODS, certify RODS, and collect required supporting documents. Drivers must also know how to display and transfer data to safety officials when requested.  For information about meeting the ELD requirements, visit the FMSCA’s ELD page.

For more information on understanding FMCSA regulations

Learn more about the ELD rule and other FMCSA regulations that might apply to agriculture in this excellent publication by our colleagues, Tiffany Dowell Lashmet at Texas A&M and Beth Rumley at the National Agricultural Law Center:   Outline for Analyzing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulation: Applicability for Agriculture

Leave a comment

Filed under Roadway Laws, Uncategorized