Following the public release of the proposed new regulation for the Horse Protection Act (HPA) in August 2023, the American Horse Council (AHC) has actively engaged with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to convey our concerns. In December 2024, we formally requested a postponement due to regulatory ambiguities. This request was granted, moving the implementation date from February 2, 2025, to April 2, 2025.
Since the Final Rule was published, AHC and many members of the horse industry have requested clarifications on the interpretation of the regulation including a perceived “mission creep” of applying the definition of soring beyond what was intended by Congress. Our focus has been to curtail unintended consequences not related to ending intentional soring. For example, did Congress intend to ban the use of fly spray?
We seriously doubt it.
AHC has found the most troubling aspect of this process is the adoption of internal USDA policies and protocols that do not require stakeholder input for functionality, resulting in vague policies that are rife with inconsistent applications.
On February 28, 2025, AHC submitted another formal request developed by our HPA working group comprised of 25 stakeholders from various breeds and disciplines. Link: https://horsecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AHC-submits-another-formal-request-to-USDA-on-HPA-regulations.pdf
To provide context for our submission, we outline the regulatory process and our strategic approach:
Background on the Regulatory Process and AHC Involvement:
This version of the Horse Protection Act (HPA) regulation went through a public comment period in the fall of 2023. The AHC and several thousand other stakeholders submitted comments during this period. Based on some of these comments, updates were made to the proposed regulation, which were finalized May 2024. When a regulation is finalized, it’s published as a “Final Rule.”
Official comment periods are an integral part in the regulatory process. Public comment periods allow regulatory agencies, like USDA, to solicit the public for ideas, concerns, and suggestions regarding a proposed regulation. Agencies are required to review all comments submitted.
Providing Informal Feedback
Stakeholders can submit questions and suggestions via email, letters, or in-person meetings outside of official comment periods. While these are not formal comments, agencies may consider them.
In some instances, we have had positive experiences submitting informal feedback to USDA on many different topics outside of HPA, and we had no reason to suspect a different outcome for this specific regulation. AHC attempted all manners of communication with USDA the last several months.
It became apparent that USDA had no intention of attempting to understand stakeholder concerns and related logistical issues concerning the HPA outside of an official public comment period.
What can be done?
One possible remedy for issues of this nature is to request an agency reopen a public comment period for a piece of regulation. This would require USDA to officially acknowledge and respond to new comments and concerns submitted by stakeholders, and it’s something they’ve done before with other pieces of regulation.
Having an official comment period reopening on the current regulation would be our best bet. The regulation has already been partially vacated as the result of a lawsuit in Texas. USDA knows significant chunks of it have to be rewritten, and they’ll want to rewrite it in a way that is legally and logistically functional compared to what they have now. Because of this, they’d be more likely to consider stakeholder input.
Why is AHC also requesting a listening session?
Listening Sessions are an official means of getting our questions/concerns on the record, but they must be organized in conjunction with USDA. As a listening session is considered “on the record”, it serves as evidence of engagement efforts which may lead to congressional oversight hearings.
Having a comment period paired with a listening session would be ideal to allow for all stakeholder voices to be fairly heard.
So why not just request to rescind the rule outright?
Rescinding the HPA regulation does not eliminate the HPA law itself. The process of withdrawing a regulation in most cases requires a comment period. Typically, withdrawing a regulation requires a public comment period during which stakeholders can express support or opposition to the withdrawal, but comments on the regulation’s content are generally not considered. After this period, the USDA may decide to proceed with or halt the rescission based on the feedback received.
If the rule is officially rescinded after a comment period, USDA would then have to write a new regulation because the HPA law is still in place, and they are tasked with enforcing it. The USDA must draft a new regulation to enforce the existing HPA law. While the agency is not obligated to incorporate stakeholder input during the drafting phase, the new proposal will undergo a public comment period before finalization. Therefore, it is advantageous for industry stakeholders to provide input early in the process to influence the development of the new regulation.
Why do official comments or being “on the record” matter?
The most important part for the industry is to be able to say, “We’re doing our part through the proper channels.” Demonstrating adherence to proper channels is crucial. If our efforts are overlooked, we can present our compliance with the process to oversight committees or during congressional hearings.
About the American Horse Council
As the national association representing all segments of the horse industry in Washington, D.C., the American Horse Council works daily to represent equine interests and opportunities.
Media Contact:
Julie Broadway
American Horse Council
Phone: 202-296-4031
Email: jbroadway@horsecouncil.org