HELP Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 18, 2025
Bottom line
This bill provides a permanent exemption for a wide range of livestock haulers from federal hours of service and electronic logging device regulations, aiming to address concerns about animal welfare and economic burdens on the agricultural sector.
What it actually does
This bill permanently exempts commercial motor vehicles transporting livestock, insects, or aquatic animals, including unladen vehicles picking up or returning from delivery, from federal hours of service regulations and electronic logging device (ELD) requirements. It defines 'livestock' broadly to encompass various living animals cultivated for commercial purposes.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current hours of service and ELD regulations are impractical and harmful for livestock transportation, as they do not account for the welfare of live animals which require timely delivery and cannot be easily stopped for mandatory rest periods. They contend that these exemptions are crucial for preventing animal suffering, reducing stress on livestock, and ensuring the economic viability of agricultural producers.
Opponents contend
Opponents, typically safety advocates, might argue that exempting any commercial motor vehicles from hours of service and ELD requirements could compromise road safety by increasing driver fatigue. They might contend that while animal welfare is important, it should not come at the expense of public safety, and that alternative solutions should be explored that balance both concerns.
The bill text is very short and easy to read, allowing for quick comprehension of its core provisions.
Section 2(a)
Exemption from Hours of Service and Electronic Logging Device Regulations for Covered Livestock Hauling Vehicles
This provision permanently exempts commercial motor vehicles that are transporting livestock, insects, or aquatic animals from federal regulations concerning hours of service and the use of electronic logging devices. This means drivers of these specific vehicles would not be subject to federal limits on driving time or mandatory rest breaks, nor would they need to use ELDs to record their driving hours.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this exemption is vital for animal welfare, as live animals cannot simply be left unattended during mandatory rest stops, and delays can cause significant stress, injury, or death. They also contend it provides necessary operational flexibility for an industry with unique logistical challenges.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while animal welfare is a concern, driver fatigue is a significant safety hazard. They would contend that exemptions undermine efforts to improve road safety and that all commercial drivers, regardless of cargo, should adhere to hours of service rules to protect themselves and other motorists.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the unique logistical and animal welfare concerns of livestock transportation against broader road safety regulations designed to prevent driver fatigue and accidents involving commercial motor vehicles.
Section 2(b)
Exemption for Unladen Vehicles
This subsection clarifies that the exemption from hours of service and electronic logging device requirements also applies to covered livestock hauling vehicles when they are unladen (empty) but are either on their way to pick up livestock or returning after delivering livestock. This ensures that the entire journey related to livestock transport is covered by the exemption.
Section 2(c)
Definitions
This subsection defines key terms used in the Act. 'Commercial motor vehicle' refers to its existing definition in federal law. 'Covered livestock hauling vehicle' is defined as a commercial motor vehicle transporting 'livestock, insects, or aquatic animals.' The term 'livestock' is broadly defined to include traditional livestock, insects, all other living animals cultivated, grown, or raised for commercial purposes, and live aquatic animals that have been caught, taken, or harvested.
Defines 'livestock' to include not only traditional livestock (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1471) but also 'insects, all other living animals cultivated, grown, or raised for commercial purposes, and live aquatic animals that have been caught, taken, or harvested.'
Section 2(c)(3)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to ensure comprehensive coverage for all intended beneficiaries, rather than an attempt to hide the provision. However, its breadth could be easily overlooked.
Case for: Supporters would argue that the broad definition is necessary to provide consistent regulatory relief across the diverse live animal agriculture and aquaculture industries, where similar time-sensitive welfare concerns apply to all living creatures in transit.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could inadvertently extend exemptions to transport operations that do not face the same critical animal welfare issues as traditional livestock, potentially creating unforeseen safety risks or regulatory loopholes.
Estimated impact: This broadens the scope of the exemption to include a much wider array of commercial animal transport, impacting industries beyond traditional cattle, hog, and poultry farming, such as insect farming, aquaculture, and exotic animal breeding.