HAULS Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 17, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to provide greater flexibility and reduce regulatory burdens for agricultural haulers by expanding HOS exemptions and clarifying the scope of what constitutes an agricultural commodity.
What it actually does
This bill modifies federal hours of service (HOS) exemptions for commercial motor vehicle drivers transporting agricultural commodities and farm supplies. It expands the 150 air-mile radius exemption to include the destination point, removes state-determined seasonal limitations for agricultural commodities, and mandates a broader definition of "agricultural commodity" to include a wider range of products and animals.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current HOS regulations do not adequately account for the unique challenges of agricultural transportation, such as unpredictable harvest times, perishable goods, and animal welfare concerns. They contend that expanding exemptions and clarifying definitions will improve efficiency, reduce spoilage, enhance animal welfare during transport, and lower costs for farmers and consumers without compromising safety.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly safety advocates, might argue that expanding HOS exemptions could lead to increased driver fatigue, potentially compromising road safety for all users. They may contend that longer driving hours without adequate rest periods increase the risk of accidents, and that existing regulations are in place to prevent such outcomes.
The bill is very short and straightforward, allowing ample time for a thorough review by any interested reader.
Section 2(1)(B)
Expand 150 Air-Mile Radius Exemption for Agricultural Haulers
This provision amends existing law to allow drivers transporting agricultural commodities to be exempt from federal hours of service regulations within a 150 air-mile radius from either the source or the destination of the commodities. Previously, the exemption only applied from the source. This change provides more flexibility for drivers, particularly on return trips or when making multiple deliveries.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change better reflects the realities of agricultural logistics, where drivers often return empty or deliver to multiple destinations within a short radius. It reduces unnecessary downtime and improves efficiency for time-sensitive loads like perishable goods or live animals.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that expanding the exemption to include the destination could lead to drivers operating for longer periods without adequate rest, increasing fatigue-related accident risks, even within a limited radius.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the economic and logistical needs of the agricultural sector against potential concerns regarding driver fatigue and road safety.
Section 2(1)(A) and Section 2(2)
Eliminate State-Specific Seasonal HOS Exemptions
This provision removes the requirement that agricultural HOS exemptions apply only "during planting and harvest periods, as determined by each State." It also removes similar seasonal language for livestock feed. This effectively makes the agricultural HOS exemptions applicable year-round, rather than being tied to specific state-determined seasons.
Section 3
Broaden Definition of "Agricultural Commodity" for HOS Exemptions
This section mandates that the Secretary of Transportation revise the definition of "agricultural commodity" in federal regulations (49 CFR 395.2) within 180 days. The revised definition must explicitly include a wide range of products, including nonprocessed food/feed/fuel/fiber products, living animals (fish, insects, livestock) and their nonprocessed products (milk, eggs, honey), forestry, aquacultural, horticultural, and floricultural commodities, fresh or minimally processed fruits and vegetables, and animal feed.
The bill mandates a revision of the term "agricultural commodity" in 49 CFR 395.2 to include a comprehensive list of items, such as nonprocessed products for food/feed/fuel/fiber, living animals (fish, insects, livestock) and their nonprocessed products, forestry, aquacultural, horticultural, floricultural commodities, fresh/minimally processed fruits/vegetables, and animal feed.
Section 3(a) and (b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending regulations; it's not evasive but requires external regulatory knowledge. The detailed list ensures comprehensive coverage, which might otherwise be left to agency discretion.
Case for: Proponents argue that explicitly listing these categories removes ambiguity, ensures consistent application of HOS exemptions across diverse agricultural sectors, and prevents future disputes over what qualifies as an "agricultural commodity."
Case against: Critics might argue that such a detailed statutory definition could become rigid and difficult to adapt to future innovations or changes in agricultural practices without further legislative action. Some might also argue that including certain "minimally processed" items could stretch the original intent of agricultural exemptions.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the scope of products and animals eligible for HOS exemptions, potentially affecting a vast segment of the agricultural transportation industry and increasing the number of drivers operating under these modified rules.