Air Emissions Win for Livestock and Poultry

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the EPA’s rule exempting air emissions from animal waste from EPCRA reporting requirements. This is a significant win for farmers because it confirms that normal emissions from a livestock or poultry operation do not trigger a reporting requirement originally intended for industrial chemical spills. The case is Rural Empowerment Ass’n for Community Help et al., v. U.S. Env’tl Protection Agency et al., and Nat’l Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc., et al., Civil Action No. 18-2260 (TJK), (D.C. Dist. Ct. 2025).

EPCRA is the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. EPCRA requires that certain facilities notify state and local authorities if covered “pollutants” are released into the environment. EPCRA imposes emergency notification requirements for releases of “extremely hazardous substances” if that release occurred in the manner which normally would have required CERCLA reporting. In 2018, Congress passed the FARM Act to exempt air emissions from animal waste at farm from reporting requirements under CERCLA (another federal environmental statute). In 2019, EPA issued a rule exempting those same releases from EPCRA emergency notification (the “2019 Rule”). Numerous environmental organizations sued the EPA to challenge that rule. A group of agricultural organizations intervened in the lawsuit, including American Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.

The plaintiffs claimed the EPA made three mistakes related to the 2019 Rule: (1) EPA violated EPCRA by excluding animal waste air emissions; (2) EPA acted in a way that was arbitrary and capricious; and (3) EPA failed to conduct an environmental impact analysis. The Court rejected each of these arguments in favor of the EPA and the agricultural groups.

First, the plaintiffs and EPA agreed that the substantive question was whether air emissions from animal waste at farms “occur in a manner” which would require notification under CERLCA. In other words, what mattered was the nature of alleged release, or the way in which a substance is released into the environment. The court affirmed that because Congress expressly exempted animal waste air emissions from CERCLA reporting under the FARM Act, such releases do not “occur in a manner” that would require reporting under EPCRA. This meant the 2019 Rule did not violate EPCRA. EPA’s regulations reinforced this reading of the text (even under the new Loper Bright approach to administrative deference).

The court also found that EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting the 2019 Rule. The EPA explained that the Rule clearly responded to the FARM Act and was based on the relationship between CERCLA and EPCRA. The basic purpose of EPCRA’s emergency release notification requirements is for facilities to inform state and local agencies of accidental releases so that these agencies can exercise the local emergency response plan if necessary. Because Congress tied the EPCRA reporting requirements directly to CERCLA and then, in the FARM Act, explicitly exempted animal waste air emissions at farms, the 2019 Rule was directly in line with the statutory law.

Finally, the Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) did not apply, so the EPA was not required to conduct an environmental impact analysis. When an agency has no ability to prevent a certain effect due to its limited statutory authority over the relevant action, NEPA does not apply. Put another way, if the agency lacks discretion to affect the outcome of its actions, then the information a NEPA analysis provides can have no effect on the agency’s action. When Congress passed the FARM Act creating a CERCLA exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms, the related EPCRA requirements essentially “piggybacked” on the CERCLA mandates. Thus, the FARM Act compelled EPA to issue the 2019 Rule and NEPA did not apply.

This decision can be appealed to the federal appellate court. In the meantime, it is a significant win for livestock and poultry farmers everywhere.