Category Archives: Animals

The Ag Law Harvest

Written by: Ellen Essman, Sr. Research Associate, and Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow

Here’s our latest gathering of agricultural law news that you may want to know:

GIPSA as we know it is no more.  A rule was released November 29, 2018 by the USDA as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to reorganize the agency.  Of particular note, the rule, which was published in the Federal Register, eliminates the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) as a “stand-alone agency.”  According to the GIPSA website (which is currently still available here), the agency “facilitate[d] the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products, and promote[d] fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American agriculture.”  The new administrative rule relocates GIPSA responsibilities to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Administrator.  The change is not without controversy, as some farmers and agricultural groups argue that the protection of farmers through fair trading practices is antithetical to AMS, an agency responsible for marketing and promoting commodities.  The rule is available here.

Supreme Court considers when habitat is “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act.  The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of private landowners when it recently determined that protected “critical habitat” for an endangered species must be habitat in which the species could actually survive.  The Court’s decision in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al  involved the dusky gopher frog, an endangered species that once lived throughout the coastal regions of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  Some of the habitat deemed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to be protected “critical habitat” for the frog was not actually occupied by the frog, and was instead being used for commercial timber production.  Weyerhaeuser and other affected landowners brought suit, claiming that the land couldn’t be critical habitat because the frog could not survive there without significant human intervention, such as intensive tree planting.  The Court agreed that critical habitat “cannot include areas where the species could not currently survive.”  Weyerhouser and other landowners had also challenged the agency’s cost-benefit analysis for the critical habitat designation, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and stated that it had no power to review the FWS  analysis.   The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that federal courts can review an agency’s economic impact analysis to determine whether the agency abused its discretion or was arbitrary and capricious.  With that guidance, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.  The Supreme Court’s decision is here.

A second judge finds that Trump’s WOTUS repeal was not procedurally sound.  Surprise, surprise, the WOTUS, or “waters of the United States” rule is in the news again.  In many previous blog posts, we have chronicled decisions on the ever-present WOTUS rule (search “WOTUS” in our search bar for our other posts).  Readers will recall that last February, the Trump administration published a new rule which was meant to repeal Obama’s WOTUS rule and replace it with the pre-2015 definition of WOTUS until a new definition could be developed.  Trump’s  rule was published on February 6, 2018, giving the administration until 2020 to come up with a new definition.  On August 16, 2018, a district court judge in South Carolina found that the Trump administration did not comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it enacted the February 6 rule.  Similarly, on November 26, 2018, Judge John Coughenour in the Western District of Washington found that “by restricting the content of the comments solicited and considered [about the February rule], the Agencies deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on relevant and significant issues in violation of the APA’s notice and comment requirements.”  Rulemaking that violates the APA is invalid.  Judge Coughenour’s full decision is available here.

Both the South Carolina and the Washington state district court decisions are applicable to the entire country.  As a result, one might think that the Obama WOTUS rule should be in effect nationwide.  However, it is important to remember that in some states, there are injunctions against carrying out Obama’s WOTUS rule.  This means that it cannot be carried out in those states, and that the pre-2015 rule is actually effective in those states.  EPA has a map depicting which version of the rule applies where.  Uncertainty and WOTUS seem to be synonymous these days.  The only thing we know for certain is that the WOTUS saga is not over, meaning things are likely to change again in the future.

Ohio Treasurer pioneers paying taxes with Bitcoin.  Any business operating in Ohio may now pay certain taxes to the state of Ohio using Bitcoin, as recently announced by outgoing Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel.  The move makes Ohio the first state to accept Bitcoin as a form of tax payment.  The official press release expressed hopes that other cryptocurrencies could be used, but at this time only Bitcoin will be accepted.  Cryptocurrencies are said to be secure because they use blockchain, which is a digital register of transactions and information that is difficult to modify because changes to the register cannot be done by any single user.  The Treasurer’s Office has specified 23 different taxes that can be paid with cryptocurrencies, including: Commercial Activity Taxes (CAT), consumer’s use taxes, Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) taxes, Pass-Thru Entity (PTE) taxes, sales taxes, and more.  Paying with cryptocurrency is being accepted as an additional form of payment, as businesses can still pay with ACH credit, ACH debit, check, and money order.  However, the state will not keep the cryptocurrency, but instead will use a third party to cash out the Bitcoin and convert it into U.S. dollars before depositing them into the state’s account.  For more information, visit www.OhioCrypto.com or view the Treasurer’s Frequently Asked Questions page here.

Bayer prepares to bear with multiple jury trials over Monsanto’s glyphosate.  Bayer AG continues to battle more and more plaintiffs claiming that their health problems were caused as a direct result of Monsanto’s Roundup and glyphosate.  Another 600 plaintiffs have reportedly sued Bayer/Monsanto in the past two months since we last reported the number of lawsuits initiated with this argument.  Following the multi-billion dollar verdict in California state court late this summer, more jury trials are set to begin.  Over 620 cases have been filed in federal court, and the first case to reach a federal jury is now set for trial in San Francisco in February 2019.  Another California state court case has been fast-tracked to be heard in March 2019 because of the condition and age of the plaintiffs.  Yet another case is expected to be scheduled in Missouri state court for sometime later in 2019.  The cases largely depend upon a plaintiff’s ability to convince a jury that his or her cancer was more likely than not directly caused by glyphosate.  This question because controversial in 2015 when the United Nation’s World Health Organization released a report stating that the widely used herbicide is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”  However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a release in 2017 saying that its own findings demonstrate that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic in humans.

Is this pumpkin pie made of pumpkin?  Thanksgiving dinner conversations often involve at least one debate for many families.  Prompted by recent coverage in news outlets like the Wall Street Journal, one of the topics this year was whether grandma’s pumpkin pie is made of pumpkin, and whether it should be.  At one end of the debate are those who say that pumpkin pie must be made from pumpkins, while others say that closely related squashes have a better flavor and consistency that make a pie taste the way a “pumpkin pie” should taste.  Central to this debate is the status of firm-shelled, golden-fleshed sweet squash, which currently makes up a large portion of the market for “canned pumpkin.”  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a long-standing policy saying that labeling the golden-fleshed, sweet squash as “pumpkin” complies with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.  Since 1938, the FDA has “consistently advised canners that we would not initiate regulatory action solely because of their using the designation “pumpkin” or “canned pumpkin” on labels for articles prepared from golden-fleshed, sweet squash, or mixtures of such squash with field pumpkins.”  The FDA explains that allowing current labeling practice does not seem to mislead or deceive consumers.  While the FDA declines to take a stand on the issue, families are free to continue to debate which ingredients make for the best pumpkin pie.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under ag law harvest, Animals, Environmental, Property

Did you know that states’ “right-to-farm” protections can apply to aquaculture, too?

Written by Ellen Essman, Sr. Research Associate

A few weeks ago we attended the American Agricultural Law Association’s (AALA) annual conference, which was held in Portland, Oregon this year. While we were there, we had the opportunity to learn about numerous topics related to agricultural law.  One such topic was presented by our colleague from the National Sea Grant Law Center, Amanda Nichols.  Nichols presented her research on state “right-to-farm” statutes and their applicability to aquaculture.

What is aquaculture?

For those who don’t know, aquaculture is defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as “the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, plants, algae, and other organisms in all types of water environments.”  Thus, aquaculture is essentially the farming of aquatic species in freshwater and saltwater, in manmade and natural bodies of water.

What are right-to-farm laws?

Right-to-farm laws are meant to protect agricultural operations against nuisance lawsuits brought by neighboring landowners complaining about smell, dust, noise, or other annoyances.  In terms of “traditional,” terrestrial farming, for example, right-to-farm laws could potentially protect against lawsuits claiming the spreading or accumulation of livestock manure is a nuisance to neighbors.  Every state in the U.S. has their own right-to-farm statute, and some of the statutes protect farming operations more completely than others do.  For example, Ohio’s right-to-farm language provides farmers with a complete defense to civil nuisance lawsuits when certain conditions are met.  On the other hand, neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania’s statutes provide no such defenses.

Where aquaculture and right-to-farm laws overlap

In her research on the topic of which states include protection of aquaculture operations in their right-to-farm laws, Nichols found that twenty-six states, including Ohio, “expressly include fish or aquaculture within the scope of their right-to-farm protections.” As a result, any right-to-farm protections to traditional agriculture, as well as any conditions agricultural operations must meet in order for the right-to-farm language to apply, would also extend to aquaculture in those twenty-six states.  Nichols found that one state, New Jersey, did “not mention aquaculture or fish expressly” but has adopted a manual for best management practices (BMPs) for aquaculture within the state, which shows the state’s “intent” to protect aquaculture from nuisance lawsuits.

Ohio’s right-to-farm legislation

As mentioned above, Ohio’s right-to-farm legislation “expressly include[s]” aquaculture.  It does so by defining “agricultural production” not only as “animal husbandry” or production of plants for “a commercial purpose,” but also as “commercial aquaculture” and “algaculture meaning the farming of algae.”

Ohio farmers, including those involved in aquaculture, have right-to-farm protection in two parts of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC).  ORC Chapter 929 establishes “agricultural districts.”  Generally, in order to place land in an agricultural district, the owner of the land must file an application with the county auditor.  Certain requirements must be met in order for an application to be accepted.  Slightly different rules apply if the land in question is within a municipal corporation or is being annexed by a municipality.  If the application is accepted, the land is placed in an agricultural district for five years.  The owner may submit a renewal application after that time is up.

Being part of an agricultural district in Ohio can help farmers and landowners to defend against civil lawsuits.  ORC 929.04 reads:

In a civil action for nuisances involving agricultural activities, it is a complete defense if:

A. The agricultural activities were conducted within an agricultural district;

B. Agricultural activities were established within the agricultural district prior to the plaintiff’s activities or interest on which the action is based;

C. The plaintiff was not involved in agricultural production; and

D. The agricultural activities were not in conflict with federal, state, and local laws and rules relating to the alleged nuisance or were conducted in accordance with generally accepted agriculture practices.

The ORC’s chapter on nuisances provides additional protection for those “engaged in agriculture-related activities.”  Under ORC 3767.13, people who are practicing agricultural activities “outside a municipal corporation, in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices, and in such a manner so as not to have a substantial, adverse effect on public health, safety, or welfare” are typically exempt from claims of nuisance due to farm noise, smells, etc.

Not only is Ohio’s right-to-farm legislation more forceful in its protection of agriculture than many other states, but it also explicitly includes aquaculture under that protection.  AALA gave us the chance to learn about this very interesting study of right-to-farm legislation as applies to aquaculture, which is an area of agriculture that many Ohioans might not necessarily think about.  If you are interested in learning more about state right-to-farm laws and aquaculture, the National Sea Grant Law Center’s report is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Property

North Carolina’s Smithfield Lawsuits: Could Ohio Farmers Face Similar Results?

Written by Ellen Essman, Sr. Research Associate

Over the last several months, three nuisance cases have been decided against Smithfield Foods in federal court in North Carolina.  The juries in the cases have found Smithfield’s large farms, with thousands of hogs, and the odor, traffic, and flies that come along with them, to be a nuisance to neighboring landowners.  Smithfield has been ordered to pay hefty damages to the neighbors, and more cases against the company remain to be decided.  Given the outcomes of the cases that have been decided thus far, farmers and landowners in Ohio might be wondering how Ohio law compares to North Carolina law as pertains to agricultural nuisances.

Ohio’s Right-to-Farm law

Many states, including both Ohio and North Carolina, have “right-to-farm” legislation, which in part is meant to protect agriculture from nuisance lawsuits such as those filed against Smithfield.  While nearly every state has a right-to-farm statute, they do differ in language and how they go about protecting agriculture.

Ohio farmers have right-to-farm protection in two parts of the Revised Code.  ORC Chapter 929 establishes “agricultural districts.”  Generally, in order to place land in an agricultural district, the owner of the land must file an application with the county auditor.  Certain requirements must be met in order for an application to be accepted.  Slightly different rules apply if the land in question is within a municipal corporation or is being annexed by a municipality.  If the application is accepted, the land is placed in an agricultural district for five years.  The owner may submit a renewal application after that time is up.

Being part of an agricultural district in Ohio can help farmers and landowners to defend against civil lawsuits.  ORC 929.04 reads:

 In a civil action for nuisances involving agricultural activities, it is a complete defense if:

  • The agricultural activities were conducted within an agricultural district;
  • Agricultural activities were established within the agricultural district prior to the plaintiff’s activities or interest on which the action is based;
  • The plaintiff was not involved in agricultural production; and
  • The agricultural activities were not in conflict with federal, state, and local laws and rules relating to the alleged nuisance or were conducted in accordance with generally accepted agriculture practices.

The ORC’s chapter on nuisances provides additional protection for those “engaged in agriculture-related activities.”  Under ORC 3767.13, people who are practicing agricultural activities “outside a municipal corporation, in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices, and in such a manner so as not to have a substantial, adverse effect on public health, safety, or welfare” are typically exempt from claims of nuisance due to farm noise, smells, etc.

North Carolina’s Right-to-Farm law

Much like Ohio, North Carolina farm land can be part of an “agricultural district.” North Carolina’s preservation of farmland law is available here.  This program is meant to protect agricultural land—land that is part of an agricultural district is must be used for agriculture for at least 10 years.  However, unlike Ohio’s law, North Carolina does not specifically spell out that land in agricultural districts will be protected from nuisance suits when the landowner follows the rules of the agricultural district.  North Carolina’s law does state that one of the purposes of agricultural districts is to “increase protection from nuisance suits and other negative impacts on properly managed farms,” but unlike Ohio, it does not explicitly state that being part of an agricultural district is a defense to a nuisance lawsuit.

North Carolina also has a statute which specifically spells out the right-to-farm.  In response to the recent jury decisions, however, North Carolina has changed its right-to-farm law.  The original law read:

(a) No agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality outside of the operation after the operation has been in operation for more than one year, when such an operation was not a nuisance at the time the operation began.

(a1) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply when the plaintiff demonstrates that the agricultural or forestry operation has undergone a fundamental change.  A fundamental change does not include any of the following:

  • A change in ownership or size.
  • An interruption of farming for a period of no more than three years.
  • Participation in a government-sponsored agricultural program.
  • Employment of new technology.
  • A change in the type of agricultural or forestry product produced.

The original law did not protect agricultural operations if their actions were negligent or improper.  The original law is available here.

Following the first decision against Smithfield, the North Carolina legislature overrode the Governor’s veto to implement amendments to the state’s right-to-farm law.  In the amendments, available here (sections 106-701 and 106-702), the legislature substantially changed the language of the law, making what constitutes a nuisance much more explicit and dependent on certain factors.  What is more, the new version of the law places limits on when plaintiffs can recover punitive damages for a private nuisance action.

A comparison of the Ohio and North Carolina’s sections of legislation promoting the “right-to-farm” shows how different the two states are.  Ohio’s legislative language makes it obvious that the meaning of the law is to protect agriculture from nuisance suits—by specifically stating that being in an agricultural district is a complete defense to nuisance, and that otherwise, agriculture is generally exempt from nuisance suits.  North Carolina’s law concerning agricultural districts does not specifically state that being in such a district is a defense to nuisance, instead, it simply expresses the hope that districts will “increase protection from nuisance suits.”  Furthermore, while North Carolina’s original right-to-farm law stated that agricultural operations do not “become a nuisance” due to changed conditions in the community, that language is not very specific.  Ohio’s agricultural district language lays out exactly what must be done to have a complete defense against a nuisance lawsuit; North Carolina’s language in multiple parts of the General Statutes does not have the same degree of specificity.

Permit as a defense to nuisance

In addition to the right-to-farm law, under ORC 903.13, those owning, operating, or responsible for concentrated animal feeding facilities in Ohio have an affirmative defense to a private civil action for nuisance against them if the CAFO is “in compliance with best management practices” established in their installation of a disposal system or operation permits.   North Carolina does not appear to have similar language protecting permitted farms in its General Statutes.

Other factors that may come into play

In the lawsuits against Smithfield farms, the lawyers for the plaintiffs (neighboring landowners) have continuously asserted that Smithfield has “means and ability” to “reduce the nuisance from existing facilities” by ending the use of “lagoon and sprayfield” systems at their farms.  Plaintiffs stress that not only is Smithfield Foods, Inc. a large, wealthy, multinational company, but that they have also changed their lagoon and sprayfield practices outside of North Carolina.  In lagoon and sprayfield systems, all waste is collected in an open-air lagoon and then sprayed on fields as fertilizer.  The practice was first banned for new construction in North Carolina in 1997, and in 2007, the state permanently banned the practice for newly constructed swine facilities.  Although many of the facilities in question were opened before any ban on the construction of lagoon and sprayfield facilities, the plaintiffs contend that changes made in other states mean Smithfield can afford to change in North Carolina.  The ban on new lagoon and sprayfield systems in North Carolina, and evidence that Smithfield has used different practices to reduce the smell from the farms in other states, likely helped the juries in the cases that have been tried to date find that the farms are a nuisance to their neighbors. The above argument is something operators of livestock facilities in Ohio should be aware of.  Although Ohio has not specifically banned lagoon and sprayfield systems like North Carolina has, the ability to change the system could still potentially be used to argue nuisance.  Ohio operators are supposed to follow best management practices and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Field Office Technical guide when applying and storing manure, which include ways to reduce odor from manure and other applications, as well as reducing other types of nutrient pollution.  Following such guidelines would likely help operators in any argument against nuisance.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Environmental, Property

Ohio General Assembly considers bills about Cottage Foods, Dogs on Patios

Written by Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, Agricultural & Resource Law Program

A few bills related to food preparation and dining in the great outdoors are on the move in the Ohio General Assembly.

One of the bills, Senate Bill 233, would allow those who produce cottage foods to do so in a firebrick oven on a patio connected to the producer’s residence.   According to Ohio law, cottage foods are non-hazardous and are produced in a person’s home.  Cottage foods can include, but are not necessarily limited to: bakery products, jams, jellies, candy, and fruit butter.  If passed, SB 233 would change the current law, which only allows cottage foods to be prepared in an oven or on a stove inside the cottage food producer’s residence.  SB 233 would allow producers to use both an inside oven and an outside firebrick oven.  The bill is currently being debated in the Senate Health, Human Services & Medicaid Committee.

Two identical bills concerning dogs on restaurant patios are working their way through the two houses of the General Assembly—House Bill 263 and SB 182.  The bills would prohibit state agencies and local boards of health from adopting rules banning dogs “in an outdoor dining area of a retail food establishment or food service operation.”  Even though the government would not be able to ban dogs in those areas, the bills would allow individual restaurants to decide to keep dogs out of their outdoor areas, with the exception of service dogs.  HB 263 is being considered in the House Economic Development, Commerce & Labor Committee.  SB 182 is currently being discussed in the Senate Health, Human Services & Medicaid Committee.

Will cottage food producers be able to make tasty treats in firebrick ovens?  Will your canine companion generally be allowed to accompany you on restaurant patios throughout Ohio?  Stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for any updates on these bills.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Food

Bill proposes immunity for Ohio beekeepers

ENT-79-honey-bee-hivesThe first hearing for a bill that would limit legal liability for Ohio beekeepers took place this week before the House Economic Development, Commerce and Labor Committee. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk), offered several reasons for the proposal, including that beekeeping has recently grown in popularity along with increased demand for honey products, bees play an important role in pollinating plants and contribute to the agricultural economy, and beekeepers have incurred expenses defending themselves against lawsuits that are typically unsuccessful.

House Bill 392 aims to provide immunity from liability for any personal injury or property damage that occurs in connection with keeping and maintaining bees, bee equipment, queen breeding equipment, apiaries, and appliances, as long as the beekeeper does all of the following:

  1. Registers the  with the Ohio Department of Agriculture, as is currently required by Ohio law;
  2. Operates according to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 909, which contains provisions for apiaries;
  3. Implements and complies with the best management practices for beekeeping as established by the Ohio State Beekeepers Association; and
  4. Complies with local zoning ordinance provisions for apiaries. Note that zoning ordinances for apiaries would exist only in incorporated areas, as Ohio’s “agricultural exemption from zoning” prohibits townships and counties from using zoning to regulate agricultural activities like beekeeping.

A beekeeper would not have immunity from liability resulting from intentional tortious conduct or gross negligence, however.

The second hearing for the bill will take place on December 5, 2017. Information about the proposal is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Food, Property

New care standards for Ohio veal and dairy to begin in 2018

Written by Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Image of dairy cattle in field_0Veal and dairy producers in Ohio will be subject to new livestock care standards in 2018. Producers were first made aware of these changes when the Ohio Livestock Care Standards for veal, dairy and other species were originally adopted in September of 2011 after the passage of State Issue 2, a constitutional amendment that required Ohio to establish standards for the care of livestock. Since the new care standards make significant changes to the management of veal and dairy, producers were given a little more than six years to transition their facilities and practices accordingly. The new standards will be effective on January 1, 2018.  Producers with veal calves and dairy cattle are encouraged to understand the regulations and make the required changes to their operations by January 1.

Changes to veal regulations

The regulations for veal address housing for veal calves weighing 750 pounds or less. Currently, veal calves may be tethered or non-tethered in stalls of a minimum of 2 feet x 5.5 feet. Next year, the following housing standards will apply:

  • Tethering will be permitted only to prevent naval and cross sucking and as restraint for examinations, treatments and transit, if:
    • The tether is long enough to allow the veal calf to stand, groom, eat, lie down comfortably and rest in a natural posture;
    • The tether’s length and collar size is checked every other week and adjusted as necessary.
  • Individual pens must allow for quality air circulation, provide opportunity for socialization, allow calves to stand without impediment, provide for normal resting postures, grooming, eating and lying down, and must be large enough to allow calves to turn around.
  • By the time they are ten weeks old, veal calves must be housed in group pens. The regulations currently require that group pens meet the above standards required for individual pens and also must contain at least two calves with a minimum area of 14 square feet per calf, must separate calves of substantially different sizes and that calves must be monitored daily for naval and cross sucking and be moved to individual pens or provided other intervention for naval or cross sucking.

The veal regulations, including both the current rules and the rules that will become effective January 1, are available here.

Changes to dairy cattle regulations

There is only one change to the dairy care standards. As of January 1, docking the tails of dairy cattle will only be permissible if:

  • Performed by a licensed veterinarian; and
  • Determined to be medically necessary.

The dairy cattle standards, including the current tail docking rule and the rule that becomes effective January 1, are here.

More information is also available in this press release recently published by the Ohio Department of Agriculture and on the website for Ohio’s Livestock Care Stand

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Uncategorized

Law bulletin helps livestock farmers with new air emissions reporting

Beginning today, farmers must now report air emissions of certain hazardous substances that exceed a reportable quantity under CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.  This new requirement affects livestock farmers with larger numbers of animals, as they may exceed the reportable quantity for ammonia emissions.  We’ve authored a new Law Bulletin on Continuous Release Reporting of Air Emissions for Livestock Farms to help farms determine whether they must report air emissions and if so, how to complete the reporting process.  The new bulletin is available here.

Read more about the new CERCLA air emissions reporting mandate in our earlier post.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Environmental