State Issues

Updated April 2008

Legislation to Enhance Alternative Energy Development
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau supports efforts to enhance the generation, use and availability of renewable fuels for the development of the Commonwealth.
Several bills that are currently before the Special Session of the General Assembly would substantially assist the development and implementation of renewable fuels sources in the Commonwealth.  Special Session House Bill 2 (House Bill 1202 of Regular Session) would establish an effective timetable for the blending of minimum volumes of ethanol and biodiesel in Pennsylvania marketed gasoline and diesel fuel upon the development of renewable fuels production in Pennsylvania.  Special Session Senate Bill 22 would provide state biodiesel producers a per gallon incentive during their initial stage of biodiesel production.
Without initial incentives for development of biodiesel production, fledgling companies are having great difficulty in developing the production and marketing infrastructure to remain viable. Several producers have already ceased operation.  Although the Senate has passed another version of the legislation contained in Special Session House Bill 2 which would establish a differing timetable for the blending of minimum volumes of renewable fuels in Pennsylvania-marketed fuels, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau believes the timetable established under Special Session House Bill 2 will be greatly more effective in achieving the development of the renewable fuels industry in Pennsylvania than the Senate-passed version. 
Legislation has also been proposed to define renewable fuels to include animal fats or vegetable oils, for purposes of receiving financial incentives or complying with the legislative mandates for use of renewable fuels prescribed in the legislation.  Pennsylvania Farm Bureau opposes this provision to simply allow animal fats and vegetable oils to be mixed with petroleum based diesel and qualify for incentives.
House Bill 656 of regular session has been introduced to allow the use of lands enrolled for preferential assessment under Pennsylvania’s Clean and Green Act to be used for alternative energy development, with assessment of rollback taxes limited to the specific area where the development would occur.  Pennsylvania Farm Bureau supports this provision.

State Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008-2009
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau believes state agricultural appropriations for fiscal year 2008-2009 needs to be increased from the current fiscal year’s appropriation levels in several program areas:

• A $1.5 million increase in the appropriation for financing federal crop insurance premium payments (total appropriation of $3 million for FY 2009).  Crop insurance provides Pennsylvania farmers meaningful protection from natural disasters that can economically ruin farm operations.  Without sufficient governmental financing, many farm families struggle to commit to paying the high premiums to secure crop insurance protection.  Action by the General Assembly to appropriate $3 million for crop insurance would merely restore the level to that appropriated for FY 2007.  The amount of state appropriation for FY 2009 needs to be at least restored to the FY 2007 level.
• A $1.14 million increase in appropriation to the Department of Agriculture for use in conservation district programs (total line item appropriation of $2.8 million for FY 2009).  Despite increasing environmental requirements being placed on farmers, state appropriations to Conservation Districts have continued to be cut in recent years.  The state appropriation to the Department of Agriculture’s line item appropriation for Conservation Districts for the current fiscal year was cut by $140,000.  Conservation Districts play a critical role in providing farmers with technical and financial assistance that farmers need in comply with their increasing environmental responsibilities.  To help farmers meet these additional burdens, the proposed Department of Agriculture’s line item appropriation to the Conservation Districts needs to be increased by $1.14 million above the current fiscal year’s line item appropriation.
• A $1.72 million increase in funds transferred to the Nutrient Management Fund (total transfer of $5 million for FY 2009).The Nutrient Management Fund is a nonlapsing fund available to the State Conservation Commission to administer programs that provide farmers with financial assistance to implement nutrient management plans.  Even though the regulatory requirements imposed on farmers for nutrient management have increased, the static annual transfers of $3.28 million to the Fund have been sharply below the amounts needed for responsibly administering nutrient management programs.  Net monies to the Fund have been sinking for years, and are almost depleted.  Without a substantial increase in transfer to the Fund that realistically matches the Commission’s normal annual expenditures, it will be extremely difficult for the Commission to effectively administer nutrient management programs.
• Increases of $3 million each in appropriations to Penn State University for agricultural research (total ag research appropriation of $28.595million for FY 2009) and for agricultural extension programs (total extension appropriation of $30.384 million).  Over the past five years, the lack of needed funding increases and escalating personnel costs have reduced the dollars for agricultural research and extension by approximately $5.9 million.  This deficiency has created a serious financial problem for the University and its ability to continue programs that have significantly helped farmers in viably operating their farms and preventing or controlling conditions that threaten the health or well being of animals and crops. 
• An appropriation that restores the level of funding to the Department of Agriculture for agricultural research to $3 million. Agricultural research is vital to keeping production agriculture on the leading edge of technological developments.  $3 million was appropriated for agricultural research in FY 2007, but the appropriation level for the current fiscal year was cut by $600 thousand.  It is also important that public funds utilized for agricultural research are effectively utilized.  Farm Bureau supports maintaining current funding levels with a peer review of accountability on how the money is spent.
• An appropriation of $500,000 in appropriations for Ag Excellence Programs. Appropriations to the Ag Excellence Program finance the efforts of the Center for Dairy Excellence, the Center for Fruit Excellence, and the Center for Beef Excellence.  These Centers have provided meaningful direction, leadership and resources in strengthening opportunities of dairy, fruit and beef producers to successfully manage their farm operations through business planning, business management training and support, and data information.  $430,000 was appropriated for FY 2007, but the appropriation for the current fiscal year was cut to $324,000.  Farm Bureau seeks an appropriation that is just above the appropriation level provided in FY 2007.
• Funding for creation of the Farmer’s Market Development Program in the amount of $250,000.  Legislation signed into law in October 2006 established the program, which provides grants up to $10,000 to expand or create new farm markets across the state.  Development or enhancement of farm market enterprises will help stimulate profitability on farms by providing greater opportunities fresh and wholesome foods to be directly marketed to Pennsylvania consumers.  No appropriations have been specifically committed for this program.

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau also believes that the level of appropriation for the state Animal Health Commission should be retained at the level appropriated for the last two years:
$6.675 million in appropriations have been provided to the Animal Health Commission for the past two years, but is proposed to be cut by $475,000 for FY 2009.  The Animal Health Commission plays an important role in prevention, discovery and control of animal diseases that have the potential to seriously threaten the health and well-being of domestic animal systems in the Commonwealth.  The laboratories that comprise the Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic Laboratory System (PADLS) are substantially funded through Commission appropriations.  These laboratories perform diagnostic testing on diseases that impact animal and human health (including West Nile virus and chronic wasting disease).

Farm Bureau’s requested appropriations amount to a modest increase of $11.39 million over the appropriations provided in the budget for the current fiscal year.  In reality, the requested increases amount to only $10.14 million above the appropriations provided for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.  This is prudent investment in the state’s largest industry.  Pennsylvania Farm Bureau urges your support for legislative approval of the levels of appropriations for program areas recommended above.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau also urges continued and increasing fiscal support for the Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) program, which provides transferable income tax credits for costs incurred in the development and implementation of agricultural conservation practices on farms.

Recent experiences with REAP in 2008 demonstrated both farmers’ willingness to improve environmental quality on their farms and the potential impact in improving environmental quality that could be achieved through tax credits, but also demonstrated the shortcomings of the program in its current form.  In the span of just three weeks, applications by farmers and persons working with farmers to implement environmental improvements on farms dried up the allotted $10 million in tax credits available for this year.  However, approval of REAP’s tax credits for this year are only expected to service about 300 improvement projects.

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau also urges a major, multi-year commitment of state appropriation funds to directly assist point and nonpoint sources attain nutrient and sediment reduction in Pennsylvania waterways in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

In the face of looming regulatory action in 2010 by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to mandate sediment and nutrient reductions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Pennsylvania’s farms, municipalities and businesses face a daunting task in trying to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings within the timeframe they need to do so.  Although a “tributary strategy” has been developed for the various segments in the Bay watershed to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings, state funding has fallen far short of what is needed to provide the technical and financial assistance to achieve reduction goals.

Health Insurance Legislation
Last month, the House of Representatives passed a comprehensive amendment to Senate Bill 1137 to create a government-subsidized form of health insurance for Pennsylvania adults whose income makes it difficult to afford private healthcare coverage.  Farm Bureau supports legislative initiatives that will make health insurance coverage more affordable and attainable for Pennsylvanians.  But while the healthcare plan proposed in the House-passed version of Senate Bill 1137 has some potential for helping low-income Pennsylvania adults secure health insurance, it also has a serious potential for making healthcare unaffordable for the majority of Pennsylvanians currently receiving health insurance through private group health insurance plans. 
The financial stability of small employer group healthcare plans is often dependent on the ability of the insurer to balance bad risks with good risks in the plan.  Premiums paid by good risk insureds, such as younger and healthier persons, help financially manage the increased costs in providing heathcare services to those covered in the group plan who are less healthy.
The program proposed in the House-passed version of Senate Bill 1137 has the strong potential to attract the good risk individuals away from current group plans, leaving only the bad risk individuals in the plan.  The future of Pennsylvania Farm Bureau’s highly successful thirty-year-old group health services program would be in serious jeopardy if Senate Bill 1137 is adopted without major changes and new provisions.  The real effect of the drain of good risks from current group plans will be high premium costs for those remaining in the plan.

Highway Funding
Farm Bureau policy supports full commitment of Motor License Fund revenues for improvement of the Commonwealth’s highway and bridge system.  But we oppose the conversion of existing Pennsylvania interstate highways into toll roads.
We particularly oppose legislative action taken last year in Act 44 of 2007, which attempts to provide additional funding for transportation projects primarily through conversation of Interstate 80 to a toll road.  This legislation unfairly burdens rural citizens, who will contribute the overwhelming proportion of revenues to be generated from toll collections on Interstate 80, relative to the improvements of local roads and bridges that these communities are likely to see.
We also recognize the growing importance for the Commonwealth to take aggressive action to commit significant state funding for improving our aging roads and bridges.  Without a serious commitment of funding, our roads and bridges will more rapidly deteriorate and our Commonwealth will need to incur even greater costs to eliminate the existing deficiencies of safety and function.
House Bill 2309 would ensure a greater commitment of Motor License Fund revenues for road and bridge improvement.  This bill would implement a 10-year phase-out of the current commitment of $500 million per year from the Fund for administrative operations of the Pennsylvania State Police, and rededicate those revenues for the purposes of highway and bridge system improvement for which the Fund was created.  Shortfalls to be created in the State Police’s budget would be made up through General Fund appropriations.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau urges support for legislation to repeal Act 44’s authorization for Interstate 80 to be converted to a toll road.  Pennsylvania Farm Bureau also urges support for legislation contained in House Bill 2309 to rededicate Motor License Fund revenues currently committed for administrative operation of the State Police for improvement of the Commonwealth’s roads and bridges and to finance administrative operations of the State Police through General Fund appropriations.

Continued Prohibition of Sunday Hunting
The state Game and Wildlife Code currently prohibits hunting on Sunday, except for hunting foxes or coyotes and for hunting within regulated hunting areas.  Farm Bureau policy opposes any expansion of Sunday hunting privileges.
There are legitimate reasons for retaining the current restrictions on Sunday hunting.  For the overwhelming majority of farm families, Sunday is virtually the only day that is available to them for rest and relaxation.  It is usually the day where local friends and relatives are able to get together on the farm to relax and fully enjoy the recreational opportunities the farm has to offer.  The current restrictions on Sunday hunting provide safety and security to farm families and friends who are the journeying around the farm to enjoy the woods and landscape on that day.  Legislation to remove or significantly reduce these restrictions would place farm families and other landowners at far greater safety risk and would discourage them from participating in activities that enhance their personal well-being.
Sundays are also days in which religious beliefs, values and worship are more actively practiced.  Many peoples’ religious values direct that Sunday should be dedicated to the worship of God, not the performance of non-religious activities such as hunting or working.  Efforts to expand Sunday hunting would impinge on the religious values of residents who believe that only religious activities should be performed on that day.  Pennsylvania Farm Bureau opposes any expansion of Sunday hunting.

Protection of Agricultural Biosecurity Areas
Protection of areas on the farm from exposure to transmissible diseases and hazardous substances are critical to the quality and safety of our food supply.  Most farmers implement stringent measures of protocol in areas of the farm where animals are housed or where farm products are stored or handled to minimize these risks and the serious consequences that would result from disease or product contamination.  However, efforts by farmers to get others who enter farm properties to avoid these critical areas or abide by the protocols that the farmer has established for these areas have been largely ignored.
Legislation contained in House Bill 379 would require persons entering farm properties to abide by the directives for biosecurity that the farmer has established and has posted to be performed for critical areas designated as “agricultural biosecurity areas.”  The bill would amend the Crimes Code by creating a misdemeanor offense of “agricultural biosecurity trespasser” for entering an area posted as an agricultural biosecurity area without permission to enter, or for failing to perform those biosecurity measures that the farmer has prescribed in a posted notice to be performed before entering the area.  The bill would also amend the state Domestic Animal Act to give the Department of Agriculture authority to require the establishment of agricultural biosecurity areas to minimize the presence of disease or hazardous substances on farms.  Pennsylvania Farm Bureau supports passage of HB 379.

Participation of Farm Credit in State-Ag Financing Programs
Farm Credit institutions have played an important role in the ability of farm families to secure needed credit for their farm operations at a reasonable cost.  Pennsylvania has also recently played an important role in farm families’ ability to economically obtain needed credit, through legislative changes that have made agricultural operations eligible for state-sponsored low-interest loan programs.
Financing provided to farmers under these state-sponsored programs is administered through financial institutions.  The legislation expanding the scope of eligibility of farm operations for low-interest loans did not include Farm Credit institutions among the financial institutions authorized to administratively participate in these programs.  As a result, farm families who are clients of Farm Credit are unable to take advantage of available low-interest loans through their normal credit channels.
House Bill 1265 and Senate Bill 768 would Farm Credit institutions to administratively participate in state-sponsored programs, such as the First Industries program and the Small Business First program, that provide low-interest loans to farm operations. Pennsylvania Farm Bureau would urge support for legislation contained in House Bill 1265 and Senate Bill 768 that would authorize Farm Credit institutions to participate in the administration of state-sponsored low-interest loan programs available to farm operations.

Regulation of Coal Bed Methane Well Operation
The combination of rising gas prices, advances in technology for drilling and extracting methane gas from coal seams, and a 1983 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision interpreting “coal” rights have caused serious problems for many landowners who no longer own coal rights under their property.
In situations governing the drilling and extraction of natural gas on private property, persons other than the landowner have no legal ownership of the gas underneath the property, and have no legal rights to come onto property to drill or take gas.  In order to be able to drill and operate natural gas wells on private property, a gas company would be required to obtain consent and agreement from the landowner through a gas lease.  And the landowner has the ability to negotiate with the gas company to limit the locations where wells may be drilled, the types and location of activities the company may perform on the landowner’s property, the compensation that company must pay the landowner, and other terms and conditions that the landowner is particularly concerned about.
For drilling and extraction of methane gas in coal seams, however, the legal rights and protections for surface landowners who do not own coal rights underneath their property are entirely different.  This is because of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge.  In that case, the Court ruled that the person who obtained ownership of the coal beneath the surface also received ownership of the methane gas contained within the coal seam.
Because of Hoge decision, surface owners whose coal rights were transferred decades ago have little ability to prevent the development of coal bed methane wells and access roads on their property.  The only legal requirement placed on a company owning subsurface coal bed methane rights is that the number and location of wells and well access roads that burden the surface not exceed what is “reasonably” needed to extract the methane.  And the only process that landowners may now exercise to challenge the “reasonableness” of the company’s proposed plan to develop coal bed methane wells and well access roads is the costly and time consuming process of court litigation.  Since Hoge’s ruled that property rights to the coal bed methane were transferred with the transfer of coal rights, companies owning the coal bed methane rights have no obligation to pay compensation to the surface owner.
Landowners whose properties have been subject to methane well drilling and operation have been seriously harmed in their ability to manage their farms and lands, maintain their water supplies, and maintain reasonable peace and enjoyment in their homes.
Several bills have been introduced to require “negotiation” of matters in dispute between surface owners and the companies owning the coal bed methane rights.  However, if a company does not try to resolve the surface owner’s objections in “negotiations,” court litigation would remain the only recourse for the landowner’s objections to be favorably resolved.
Legislation to be introduced by Senator Don White (Senate Bill 1330) would provide surface owners with a faster and less costly alternative to court litigation to have their objections to proposed well and well access roads heard and decided upon.  A three-member Coal Bed Methane Review Board to help surface owners and coal bed methane companies resolve disputes in well or access road locations.  Where agreements cannot be reached the Board would make a timely decision on whether the surface owner’s objections are legally justified.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau urges support for Senate Bill 1330, to be introduced in the Senate to establish an alternative process for hearing and resolving surface owner objections to proposed coal bed methane wells and well access roads through the Coal Bed Methane Review Board.

Property Tax Reform
Act 1 of 2006 will not provide farmers or the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians with meaningful relief, and will not alleviate the continually growing local tax burden placed on Pennsylvania farmers.  With the exception of some low-income senior citizens, property owners will receive no relief for several years, and when they do, they may find the reductions in taxation have already been offset by increases in property tax rates and by other local tax increases.
What little tax relief that farmers may receive under Act 1 will be limited to primary residences and to farm buildings on resident farms.  Act 1 will provide no tax reduction to farmland.  And Act 1 does not prohibit school districts from wiping out entirely the tax relief provided in Act 1’s reduction in “assessed value” by increasing the “millage rate” of tax.
The agricultural community is profoundly disappointed at the end product of Act 1, which failed to come to grips with the burdens that are placed on farmers through local taxation and provide the type tax relief that farmers need.  Real tax reform must eliminate or significantly reduce property tax burdens on farms, both land and buildings, without regard to whether the farmer resides on the farm.  Tax reform must also include a reliable source of state funding to meet the revenue needs of school districts.  Merely giving local taxing districts authority to impose other taxes on their residents will not be sufficient, since in many rural areas, household incomes of local residents do not provide a realistic opportunity to generate additional revenues through assessment of alternative tax measures.
Adoption of legislation that will provide actual and meaningful property tax reform for Pennsylvanians needs to be the number one priority for the General Assembly.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau urges support for passage of legislation that provides true tax reform.  In order to achieve true tax reform, the legislation must eliminate property tax through a menu of sources to expand state taxation, must provide tax relief to land as well as buildings, must not limit tax relief to farms where the farm family resides, and must limit authority of school districts to negate tax relief initially provided by future increases in local taxation.
Legislation such as the original version of House Bill 1600 would have benefited all Pennsylvania homesteads and farmsteads in providing property tax reduction through state surtaxes on taxable income and taxable sales.  However, the amendment to House Bill 1600 would limit the tax benefit to be provided through the state surtaxes to senior citizens.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau believes that all residents of farmstead and homestead property – not just senior citizens – should benefit from state revenues generated for property tax reduction.  In addition to extending the scope of property eligible for property tax relief to all farmland and buildings, Farm Bureau urges support for reversion and enactment of legislation contained in the original printer’s number to House Bill 1600.

Reduction or Elimination of State Inheritance Tax on Farms
Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax imposes significant burdens on the ability of farm families to financially manage the transition of farms between generations.  Unlike federal estate tax, state inheritance tax laws essentially impose tax on the first dollar of value of an estate passing from a deceased family member to another family member.
Children who receive a $500,000 farm through death of the parent will be required to pay $22,500 in inheritance taxes.  Payment of the tax is required to be made in cash.  If the farm business does not have available cash, the farm family will need to sell off farm assets to pay the tax, with no guarantees that the family will receive a price from the sales of assets that equals what these assets are truly worth.  If land needs to be sold to pay for the tax, succeeding generations will receive farms that are less productive and are less likely to be viable in the future.
Several bills have been introduced which would eliminate or minimize the inheritance tax burdens currently faced by Pennsylvania’s farm families:
House Bill 377 would phase down and finally eliminate state inheritance taxes by 2012.  House Bill 1564 would authorize in the Pennsylvania Constitution special inheritance tax exemptions for business assets passing to surviving family members.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau urges support for legislation contained in House Bill 377 to fully eliminate state inheritance taxes.  In the absence of full elimination, Farm Bureau urges your support for legislation that would provide meaningful exemptions from state inheritance taxation for transfers of assets of a family business to surviving family members.

Proposed Amendments to Dog Law Standards
Because of widespread criticism by regulated public and the General Assembly, the Rendell Administration has decided not to go forward with its regulatory proposal formally offered in December 2006, which would have imposed onerous and financially unmanageable burdens on licensed kennel operators.
This past December, the Administration had offered to stakeholders for review an alternative proposal, which came in the form of proposed legislative amendments to the Dog Law.  The draft legislation circulated last December was a significant improvement to the proposed rulemaking of December 2006.  Among the positive changes made in the draft legislation were the elimination of excessive and needless requirements for recordkeeping, the significant reduction of the radical housing standards, proposal of more reasonable standards for exercise of dogs kept in kennels, and the establishment of standards that are more consistent with standards for kennels established under federal law.
Although draft legislation circulated in December is improved, Farm Bureau still has a number of concerns:

• The draft legislation would give Dog Law officers authority to enforce the criminal provisions of the state’s cruelty to animals law.
• The draft legislation would give the Department of Agriculture unlimited authority to increase dog and kennel license fees by regulation.
• The draft legislation would make the issuance of a dog kennel license dependent on the kennel operator’s full compliance with local ordinances.
• The draft legislation contained numerous drafting flaws that would establish confusing and sometimes conflicting standards on kennel operators and would fail to give clear guidance on the extent of penalties to be imposed for violating kennel standards.
• The draft legislation would change the make-up of the Dog Law Advisory Board to tip the balance of representation on the Board significantly toward animal rights interests.

The Administration has received comments from numerous stakeholders, is expected to produce a revised version of the draft circulated in December in response to the comments received.
Farm Bureau appreciates the role that the General Assembly has played in achieving significant improvement to the proposed changes in Dog Law from those originally proposed by the Administration.  But we also believe the General Assembly must remain vigilant in assuring the change in Dog Law standards finally offered will clearly identify and define the regulatory standards that kennel operators must meet, is consistent with accepted standards and practices that responsible kennel operators perform in the care for dogs, and does not economically cause responsible kennel operators to cease operations.  Farm Bureau urges continued and active participation to ensure those changes in Dog Law standards do not cause unreasonable or unworkable requirements for kennel operators.
Although officials in Administration have privately stated they are not actively pursuing final adoption of the onerous regulations proposed in the Administration’s December 2006 rulemaking, these regulations have not been formally withdrawn.  Pennsylvania Farm Bureau also urges contactswith the Department of Agriculture and request the Department to formally withdraw its proposed December 2006 rulemaking.

Vehicle Code Amendments
Current provisions of the Vehicle Code are out-of-date with the transportation needs and operations of today’s farmers.  Without substantial changes to the Code, farmers will find it increasingly difficult to use their agricultural vehicles in a manner that will complete planting, harvesting and other tasks in a timely, effective and cost efficient manner.  Farm Bureau is seeking numerous amendments to the Vehicle Code to facilitate farmers’ current transportation needs.  More specifically, Farm Bureau is seeking amendments to the Vehicle Code that will:

• Allow the operation or movement of implements of husbandry between 14 feet 6 inches and 16 feet in width during daylight hours (if accompanied by a pilot vehicle with a warning sign).
• Allow the operation or movement of implements of husbandry between 8 feet and 14 feet 6 inches during nighttime hours (if accompanied by a pilot vehicle with a warning sign).
• Expand the maximum distance that farm vehicles over 17,000 pounds operating under a Type B exemption (requiring annual inspection) may be operated between farms or between farms and businesses to 50 miles.
• Statutorily exempt all trailers towed by implements of husbandry and farm vehicles from registration (if operated within the distance restrictions that apply to the towing vehicle).
• Exempt these trailers from requirements for lighting during daylight hours (except for periods of reduced visibility due to weather).
• Exempt vehicles being used in the course of harvesting or on-farm storage of ag products (including vehicles used by custom harvesters) from requirements for securing loads, if the vehicle is not moving at a speed greater than 45 miles per hour.

House Bill 1076 would extend the width allowances for implements of husbandry during daytime and nighttime operation, would expand the distance that farm vehicles with Type B exemptions may be operated from farms to 50 miles, and would exempt from registration trailers being towed by implements of husbandry and from farm vehicles exempt from registration within the towed vehicle’s distance limitations.
House Bill 946 would exempt farm vehicles transporting farm products in the course of harvesting or on-farm storage of harvested products from the Vehicle Code’s requirements for securing loads.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau urges support for the legislative amendments to the Vehicle Code contained in House Bill 1076 and House Bill 946 to facilitate the transportation needs of today’s farm operation.

Equine ACT 93 of 2005- pdf - Liability Protection for Equine Operators

Q & A About Clean & Green Act in Act 235 - pdf
Lower Property Taxes for Farmers