(a) Farm custom operation. The rules in this part, except for § 391.15(e) and (f), do not apply to a driver who drives a commercial motor vehicle controlled and operated by a person engaged in custom-harvesting operations, if the commercial motor vehicle is used to—
(1) Transport farm machinery, supplies, or both, to or from a farm for custom-harvesting operations on a farm; or
(2) Transport custom-harvested crops to storage or market.
(b) Apiarian industries. The rules in this part, except for § 391.15(e) and (f), do not apply to a driver who is operating a commercial motor vehicle controlled and operated by a beekeeper engaged in the seasonal transportation of bees.
(c) Certain farm vehicle drivers. The rules in this part, except for § 391.15(e) and (f), do not apply to a farm vehicle driver except a farm vehicle driver who drives an articulated (combination) commercial motor vehicle, as defined in § 390.5 of this chapter. For limited exemptions for farm vehicle drivers of articulated commercial motor vehicles, see § 391.67.
(d) Covered farm vehicles. The rules in part 391, Subpart E—Physical Qualifications and Examinations—do not apply to drivers of “covered farm vehicles,” as defined in 49 CFR 390.5.
(e) Pipeline welding trucks. The rules in this part do not apply to drivers of “pipeline welding trucks” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).
[76 FR 75487, Dec. 2, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 16195, Mar. 14, 2013; 78 FR 58483, Sept. 24, 2013; 81 FR 47720, July 22, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Lewis Ex Rel. Welles v. Metro. Transit Comm'n, 320 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1982).
“The MTC is exempt from the regulations by reason of 49 C.F.R. § 391.2 (a) (1981), which states that the driver qualifications regulations do not apply to a “driver wholly engaged in exempt intra-city operations.”
Ronald Calzone v. Eric T. Olson, 931 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2019).
“And his truck qualifies as a "covered farm vehicle" under the federal regulations, which exempts him from Missouri's application of some of the federal standards: he is exempt from all driver qualification regulations, see 49 C.F.R. §§ 391.2 (c) - (d), and he is excepted from…”
Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n v. Conagra Flour Milling Co., 736 P.2d 842 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
“§ 10525 ; 49 C.F.R. § 391.2 . Rather, ConA-gra relies on cases from other jurisdictions which have held that DOT safety regulations create a BFOQ, which failure to comply with constitutes a valid defense to a charge of discrimination based on handicap.”
Miller v. ICX, 358 F. Supp. 1378 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
“49 C.F.R. § 391.2 (a) (Emphasis added.) Regulation 390.”
Moore v. Universal Coordinators, Inc., 423 F.2d 96 (3rd Cir. 1970).
“As to driver qualifications, for example, 49 C.F.R. §§ 391.2 & 391.8 provide that “ * * * no person shall drive, nor shall any motor carrier require or permit any person to drive any motor vehicle unless [he possesses certain qualifications].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.