Does Tennessee's 10% weight-margin rule for farm trucks apply when a contract poultry farmer hauls birds belonging to an integrator to market?

Subject

Opinion No. 14-30, Application of Weight Limits To Farm Trucks Traveling On State Highway System, March 12, 2014

Plain-English summary

Representative Pat Marsh asked a narrow but practically important question for Tennessee's poultry industry: when a farmer raises chickens under a contract with an integrator who owns the birds, and the farmer hauls the chickens from the farm to market in his own truck, is that truck a "farm truck" for the 10% weight enforcement margin in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7)? The AG said yes.

The weight-limit statutes (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-7-201 to -209) cap freight-vehicle axle and gross weights on state highways. Enforcement carries fines and forfeitures under § 55-7-206. Section 55-7-203(b)(7) creates a 10% margin of error for the true gross or axle weight when "farm trucks" are operated over the state highway system other than the interstate. Section 55-7-203(b)(7)(C) defines "farm truck" as "those trucks utilized by farmers to load grain, fiber, produce, livestock, milk or other agricultural products produced on their farms and to transport the agricultural commodities to their respective markets." It also expressly includes "farm to market transportation when the truck is operated by the farmer, the farmer's family or employee or a representative hired by the farmer to haul the commodity."

The statute does not say "poultry." It does say "livestock . . . or other agricultural products." The AG resolved the question by reaching into Tennessee's agriculture statutes for the meaning of "agricultural products." Section 43-16-103(a)(1) lists "horticultural, viticultural, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, bee and any farm products." Section 43-1-113(b) defines "agriculture" as "the commercial production of farm products" and defines "farm products" to include "poultry and poultry products." Section 43-1-113(a) makes its agriculture definition the default for the entire Tennessee Code unless a more specific definition is provided.

Reading those provisions together, the AG concluded that the legislature intended "farm truck" in § 55-7-203(b)(7) to cover transportation of poultry to market by a farmer under contract to the bird's owner. The truck qualifies, and the 10% enforcement margin applies, when the farmer drives the truck on a state highway (other than the interstate).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is the 10% weight margin for farm trucks?

Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7), "weight restrictions shall be deemed to have a margin of error of ten percent (10%) of the true gross or axle weight for all farm trucks when being operated over the state highway system other than the portion designated as the interstate system." That margin is a practical recognition that farm operations rarely allow precise pre-haul weighing and that agriculture has historically received some grace in highway regulation. It applies on state highways outside the interstate.

Why did the AG even need to opine? Isn't poultry obviously a farm product?

The text of § 55-7-203(b)(7)(C) lists "grain, fiber, produce, livestock, milk or other agricultural products" but does not name poultry. A trooper or weigh-station officer reading just that statute could plausibly say poultry is not on the list, so the truck does not qualify. The opinion fills the gap by pulling the broader Tennessee agriculture definitions into the highway statute, confirming poultry counts.

Did the contract-grower structure matter to the analysis?

The contract-grower question was the practical worry behind the request. In modern poultry farming, the integrator (a company like Tyson or Pilgrim's) owns the birds; the farmer grows them under contract. A literal reading of the statute might suggest a "farm truck" only carries the farmer's own commodities. The AG read the statute's express inclusion of "the farmer, the farmer's family or employee or a representative hired by the farmer to haul the commodity" together with the agriculture-statute definitions and concluded the farm-truck definition covered the contract-grower scenario.

Does this rule apply on the interstate?

No. The 10% margin in § 55-7-203(b)(7) specifically excludes the portion of the state highway system "designated as the interstate system." On interstates, the standard federal weight limits apply without the farm-truck margin.

What weight standards still apply to farm trucks?

The same axle and gross weight limits in § 55-7-203(b)(1)-(7). The 10% margin is an enforcement leniency, not a higher cap. A farm truck still has to be designed to operate within the underlying limits; the margin just gives the driver breathing room for measurement variations and load shifting.

What happens if a farm truck exceeds the limit even with the margin?

The penalty schedule in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-206 governs. Penalties scale with the overweight amount. The AG opinion did not address penalty calculations; it only confirmed that the farm-truck category was available to contract poultry haulers.

Could other types of contract agricultural arrangements use the same analysis?

Almost certainly. The AG's reasoning was that the agriculture-statute definitions in §§ 43-1-113 and 43-16-103 control the meaning of "agricultural products" in § 55-7-203(b)(7)(C). Anything that fits those agriculture definitions (dairy, livestock, horticultural, forestry, etc.) should fit the farm-truck category, including under contract-grower or contract-feeder arrangements. The opinion does not address each specific category, but the analytical pattern transfers.

Background and statutory framework

Tennessee's vehicle weight regime is in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-7-201 to -209. The Tennessee Court of Appeals explained the purpose in London v. Stepp, 56 Tenn. App. 161, 174, 405 S.W.2d 598 (1965): the statutes were enacted as a public-safety measure "to protect motorists and their passengers traveling over the highways of the State." Penalties under § 55-7-206 include fines and forfeitures. The 10% margin for farm trucks in § 55-7-203(b)(7) is a legislative judgment that the public-safety concerns are different on non-interstate state highways and that agriculture should have some operational margin.

Tennessee's agriculture statutes use a sweeping definition of "farm products" and "agricultural products" that includes poultry. Section 43-1-113(a) extends its subsection (b) definition to the entire Code as a default. The integration of poultry into the weight-margin definition follows mechanically from those agriculture statutes.

The contract-grower model is the dominant arrangement in Tennessee poultry production. The integrator owns the birds and the feed; the farmer owns the houses, land, and labor. Resolving whether the truck used to haul the integrator's birds qualified as a "farm truck" is a meaningful operational question for thousands of Tennessee farmers.

Citations

• Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-7-201 to -209 (vehicle weight and length restrictions)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203 (weight restrictions for freight vehicles)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7) (10% margin for farm trucks)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7)(C) (definition of "farm truck")
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-206 (penalties)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-1-113(a), (b) (definition of agriculture and farm products; default code-wide application)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-16-103(a)(1) (definition of agricultural products)
• London v. Stepp, 56 Tenn. App. 161, 405 S.W.2d 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2014/op14-030.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
March 12, 2014
Opinion No. 14-30
Application of Weight Limits To Farm Trucks Traveling On State Highway System

QUESTION

When a farmer contracts to raise, produce, or feed poultry for the owner of the poultry, is a truck used to transport poultry from the farm pursuant to the contract between the farmer and the owner of the poultry a "farm truck" for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7)(C)?

OPINION

Yes. When a truck is being utilized by the farmer to transport the poultry from the farm to the market on a State highway system other than the portion designated as the interstate system, it qualifies as a "farm truck" for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7)(C).

ANALYSIS

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-7-201 to -209 provide for weight and length restrictions on motor vehicles driven on State highways. These sections were enacted as a public-safety measure to protect motorists and their passengers traveling over the highways of the State. London v. Stepp, 56 Tenn. App. 161, 174, 405 S.W.2d 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965). Violations of this part may result in fines, penalties, and forfeiture as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-206.

Weight restrictions for freight motor vehicles are found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203:

[N]o freight motor vehicle shall be operated over, on, or upon the public highways of this state where the total weight on a single axle or any group of axles exceeds the weight limitations set forth in subdivisions (b)(1)-(7).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(a). Section 55-7-203(b)(7) states that "[f]or purposes of enforcement of this section, weight restrictions shall be deemed to have a margin of error of ten percent (10%) of the true gross or axle weight for all farm trucks when being operated over the state highway system other than the portion designated as the interstate system." The provision defines "farm truck" to mean "those trucks utilized by farmers to load grain, fiber, produce, livestock, milk or other agricultural products produced on their farms and to transport the agricultural commodities to their respective markets." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7)(C). Farm trucks include "farm to market transportation when the truck is operated by the farmer, the farmer's family or employee or a representative hired by the farmer to haul the commodity." Id.

The statute does not expressly include poultry in its list of farm products, but it does include "livestock . . . or other agricultural products." Id. The meaning of "agricultural products" can be derived from the State's agriculture statutes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-16-103(a)(1) includes in its definition of "[a]gricultural products" the following: "horticultural, viticultural, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, bee and any farm products" (emphasis added). Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-1-113(b) defines "agriculture" with reference to "the commercial production of farm products," and the term "farm products" includes "poultry and poultry products." Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-1-113(b)(1)-(2).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-1-113(a) provides that the "definition of agriculture as set forth in subsection (b) shall be applicable to the term wherever it appears in the code, unless a different definition is specifically made applicable to the part, chapter, or section in which the term appears."

Based upon these statutory definitions, we conclude that in enacting the weight restrictions contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-203(b)(7), the legislature intended to include within the scope of "farm truck" transportation of poultry to market by a farmer under contract to the owner of the poultry.

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Attorney General and Reporter

JOSEPH F. WHALEN
Acting Solicitor General

PHYLLIS CHILDS
Senior Counsel

Requested by:
The Honorable Pat Marsh
State Representative
G-19A War Memorial Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37243