Category Archives: Uncategorized

USDA seeks comments on regulatory reform

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants to hear from you.   The agency published its “Identifying Regulatory Reform Initiatives” notice in the Federal Register on July 17 seeking “ideas from the public on how we can provide better customer service and remove unintended barriers to participation in our programs in ways that least interfere with our customers and allow us to accomplish our mission.”

The notice derives from the Regulatory Reform Task Force established by President Trump’s February 24, 2017 Executive Order 13777 on “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”.   The order requires the heads of federal agencies to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to repeal, replace or modify regulations that create unnecessary burdens.

Specifically, the USDA invites the public to evaluate the agency’s existing regulations.  The agency poses several questions and encourages commenters to respond in detail to the questions:

  1. Are there any regulations that should be repealed, replaced or modified?
  2. For each regulation identified in question one, identify whether the regulation:
    • Results in the elimination of jobs, or inhibits job creation;
    • Is outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    • Imposes costs that exceed benefits;
    • Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    • Is inconsistent with requirements that agencies maximize the quality, objectivity, and integrity of the information they disseminate;
    • Derives from or implements previous presidential directives that have been rescinded or substantially modified.

The comment process offers the agricultural community an opportunity to draw attention to USDA regulations that create unnecessary or unintended negative impacts on agriculture.   Considering the wide range of programs and regulations administered by the USDA in areas such as crop and livestock insurance; Farm Service Agency programs; commodity standards, grading and inspections; animal and plant health; and agricultural exports, it’s likely that agricultural producers will have thoughts to share with the agency.   To that end, USDA will accept comments for the next year, but will review the comments in four phases.  The deadline for the first review is September 15, 2017.

To read the agency’s notice and instructions for submitting comments on regulatory reform, visit this link.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

USDA Sued over Country of Origin Labeling Regulations

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

On June 19, 2017, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW) sued the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, over the legality of the current country of origin labeling  (COOL) regulations.  R-CALF USA and CPoW claim that USDA’s current COOL regulations do not require foreign beef and pork products to be labeled as such, and that in fact, the regulations allow the foreign meat to “be passed off as domestic products.”  This, they argue, hurts U.S. cattle and hog producers, as well as U.S. consumers.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, in Spokane.  In short, R-CALF USA and CPoW are asking the court to rule that the current COOL regulations are at odds with two federal laws: the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act.

 Federal laws relating to Country of Origin Labeling

According to R-CALF USA and CPoW, two laws—the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act—must be taken into account when thinking about COOL.  R-CALF USA and CPoW argue that read together, these two laws require imported meat from cattle and hogs to possess country of origin labels.

The Meat Inspection Act, at 21 U.S.C. §620(a), says that imported meat must “be marked and labeled as required by such regulations for imported articles.” “[R]egulations for imported articles” are governed by the Tariff Act.  The Tariff Act, in 19 U.S.C. §1304(a), states that “every article of foreign origin (or its container…) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place…in such a manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article.”

Regulatory history

In the lawsuit, the parties argue that historically, USDA pork and beef regulations did not follow their understanding of the Meat Inspection and Tariff Acts, discussed above.  In other words, the regulations did not require COOL.  The 2002 Farm Bill changed that.  The parties say that the 2002 Farm bill had the “primary effect of requiring” COOL on meat products from animals imported into the U.S. and subsequently slaughtered after importation.

Following the Farm Bill’s lead, USDA changed its regulations concerning meat imported into the U.S. from other countries, including meat from hogs and cattle.  The regulation, found in 7 C.F.R. § 65.300, was finalized in 2009.  It stated that meat “derived from an animal that was slaughtered in another country shall retain [its] origin, as declared to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the time the product entered the United States, through retail sale,” or sale to the end consumer.  Therefore, COOL was required on meat imported into the U.S. The regulation also allowed for the “origin declaration” on labels to “include more specific location information related to production steps.”   This meant that the labels for beef and pork could include where the animals were born, raised, and slaughtered.

World Trade Organization decision and change to regulations

After the new COOL regulations went into place, they were challenged by Canada and Mexico.  The World Trade Organization (WTO) ultimately sided with Canada and Mexico.  WTO’s reasoning for this decision is outlined in a Congressional Research Service Report on the dispute, and was based on their finding that “COOL treats imported livestock less favorably than U.S. livestock.”

Following the WTO decision, Congress determined that beef and pork—both alive and slaughtered—no longer required COOL.  Similarly, USDA removed meat from cattle and hogs from its COOL regulations.  These actions, the parties argue, went too far.  R-CALF USA and CPoW argue that the WTO decision only involved cattle and hogs that were imported live, as opposed to imported meat.

It is important to note that a number of other foods are still required to have COOL, including lamb, goat, chicken, farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, and ginseng.  More information on COOL can be found here.

R-CALF USA and CPoW’s argument

Ultimately, the parties argue that USDA went too far when they removed all meat from cattle and hogs from their COOL labeling requirements.  They argue that the WTO decision focused on live hogs and cattle, as opposed to meat from those animals, and that WTO never “call[ed] into question the marks and labels required by the Tariff Act” for meat.  Thus, they argue that USDA regulations should continue to follow the Meat Inspection and Tariff Acts, as they did following the 2002 Farm Bill.

R-CALF and CPoW claim that as a result of USDA’s far-reaching retraction of COOL regulations, “beef and pork from animals in other countries” is permitted to have the “same labels as domestic meat.”  They claim that now, “imported beef and pork can even be labeled a ‘Product of the U.S.A.’” As a consequence of this type of labeling, the parties claim that both U.S. consumers and producers are harmed.

Conclusion

R-CALF and CPoW’s lawsuit heavily relies on the authority of the Tariff Act and the Meat Inspection Act.  Their argument, in its most basic form, is that the two laws require COOL for beef and pork, and that the WTO decision did not ever call those two laws into question.  Therefore, they feel that the change in regulations went further than was necessary to comply with the WTO decision.

The defendants named, USDA and Secretary Sonny Perdue, have not yet filed their response to the lawsuit.

R-CALF USA and CPoW’s lawsuit can be read here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Food, Uncategorized

EPA Announces Plan to Repeal WOTUS Rule

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

On June 27, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced their plan to repeal the Obama Administration’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule.  The EPA and the Corps’ proposal involves two steps.  First, the agencies propose to “rescind” Obama’s WOTUS rule and “re-codify,” or re-enter, the definition of WOTUS “that existed prior to 2015” into the federal regulations.   The pre-2015 rule would serve as a placeholder until the agencies are able to carry out the second part of their plan.  The second part of the plan involves developing and proposing a new definition of WOTUS.  This announcement comes several months after President Trump called for either a repeal or revision of the WOTUS Rule in his February 28, 2017 Executive Order (EO).  The EO was quickly followed by the EPA and other agencies filing a Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule (Notice).  The EO can be found here, and the Notice here.

What was the Obama Administration’s WOTUS Rule?

The WOTUS Rule went into effect on August 28, 2015.  The Rule expanded the meaning of “waters of the United States,” or those waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), to include “tributaries to interstate waters, waters adjacent to interstate waters, waters adjacent to tributaries of interstate waters, and other waters that have a significant nexus to interstate waters.”  Furthermore, the Rule stated that tributaries are WOTUS when they flow into navigable waters, even if their flow was not constant.  The rule also elaborated on the meaning of “adjacent waters.”  For more information about the WOTUS Rule, see our blog post from earlier this year.  The Rule as it was released in the summer of 2015 can be found here.

How will “Waters of the United States” be defined?

  In the short term

Step one of the EPA and the Corps’ plan calls for a repeal of the Obama Administration’s definition of WOTUS, and a reimplementation of the WOTUS rule that existed prior to 2015.  In order to do this, the agencies are proposing a rule.  The proposed rule calls for the Code of Federal Regulations—in particular, 33 C.F.R. §328.3, to be amended to reflect the previous definition of WOTUS.  Notably, this definition does not include the Obama Administration’s expanded descriptions of “tributaries” or “adjacent waters.”  Furthermore, there is no mention of “significant nexus.”  This interim definition of WOTUS proposed by the EPA and the Corps can be found in the proposed rule, here.

            In the long term

The second step of the EPA and the Corps’ plan calls for the agencies to perform a “substantive re-evaluation” of the definition of WOTUS.  Any re-evaluation of the definition will likely take Trump’s EO into account, which called for the EPA and other agencies to, in any “[f]uture [r]ulemaking,” “consider interpreting the term ‘navigable waters’” as Justice Scalia did in Rapanos v. U.S.   The CWA defines “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.”  Thus, “navigable waters” and “WOTUS” are one in the same.  Scalia’s interpretation rejected the idea that navigable waters and WOTUS could come from channels where water flow was only occasional.   Justice Scalia asserted that navigable waters/WOTUS must be, for the most part, permanent bodies of water.  Given the language in Trump’s EO, it is likely that the second step of the plan will involve a proposed rule that includes a definition of WOTUS that closely resembles Scalia’s interpretation.  More information on Scalia’s interpretation can be found in our earlier blog post.

It is important to keep in mind that even if the EPA and the Corps successfully repeal and replace the previous administration’s definition of WOTUS, it is still very likely that opponents will challenge any new definition.  Furthermore, both the short term and long term parts of the plan have to go through the rulemaking process, including a comment and review period, before they can become effective. As a result, the debate over the meaning of WOTUS is likely far from finished.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized

Proposal extends hunting and fishing license exemptions for grandchildren

A bill in Ohio’s House of Representatives proposes amending Ohio’s hunting and fishing laws to expand exemptions from hunting, fishing and trapping licenses for grandchildren of landowners.

House Bill 272, sponsored by Rep. Householder (R—Glenford) and Rep. Kick (R—Loudonville) proposes a change to current law, which permits grandchildren to hunt, fish or trap on their grandparent’s land without a license only up to the age of 18.  The proposal revises the law to allow grandchildren “of any age” to be exempt from licensing requirements when hunting, fishing or trapping on their grandparent’s land.

The bill also extends hunting and fishing privileges to veterans. The proposed legislation would provide a partially disabled veteran the same free hunting and fishing license privilege currently afforded to a veteran with a total disability.

“Hunting and fishing are family activities,” said Rep. Householder upon introducing the bill. “They should be enjoyed without government intrusion.”

H.B. 272 is currently before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is available for viewing here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Property, Uncategorized

Ohio Will Soon Permit Certain Agricultural Utility Vehicles to Travel on Public Roads

Written by: Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

A new Ohio law affects farmers that plan to use certain utility vehicles this planting season, including Gators, Mules and other utility vehicles with a bed designed to transport cargo. The new law is part of the 2018-2019 transportation budget, formally known as House Bill 26. HB 26, which goes into effect on June 30, 2017, permits vehicles to travel on any public road or right of way—other than a freeway, when travelling from one farm field to another for agricultural purposes.

Under HB 26, utility vehicles are now expressly required to display a triangular Slow-Moving Vehicle (SMV) emblem. Previously, it was up to local law enforcement to interpret the law and decide whether a utility vehicle should have a SMV. The new law also clearly allows utility vehicles to travel on public roads between farm fields, whereas the old law required farmers to know whether the county or township allowed utility vehicles on the road. Utility vehicle operators can read more about the old law in our previous blog post on APVs, ATVs, and four-wheelers here.

What Qualifies as a “Utility Vehicle?”

Farmers should be aware that this law only covers what it defines as “utility vehicles.” This means that the law only applies to vehicles designed with a bed, for transporting material or cargo related to agricultural activities. Not all ATVs and APVs will be included in this definition.

What to Know Before Driving a Utility Vehicle on the Road

The law is good news for farmers who plan to use utility vehicles this season. If farmers plan to use a utility vehicle on the farm, they should know the following before taking the vehicle out:

  • In order to use a utility vehicle on a public road, a driver must be traveling from one farm field to another farm field for agricultural purposes.
  • Utility vehicle drivers must display a SMV on any utility vehicle used on a public road as it travels between farm fields.
  • Ohio Revised Code Section 5589.10 prohibits the placement of earth, mud, manure, or other injurious materials on a public highway. Therefore, farmers should avoid leaving such debris in the roadway or clean up the roadway if a utility vehicle leaves mud behind.

More information on HB 26 is here, under Sec. 4511.216 on page 328 of the bill.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Selling Foods at the Farm: When Do You Need a License?

With spring in full swing and summer just around the corner, many producers may be considering selling produce, meats, cottage foods and baked goods directly to consumers at the farm property. A question we often hear from farmers thinking about these types of farm food sales is, “do I need some type of license or inspection to sell food from the farm?” The answer to this question depends upon the type of food offered for sale:

  • Sales of foods such as fresh produce or cottage foods do not require a license.
  • Sales of certain types of baked goods require a home bakery license.
  • Sales of multiple types of foods or higher risk foods require a farm market registration or a retail food establishment (RFE) license.
  • The home bakery license, farm market registration, and RFE license involve inspections of the production or sales area.

It is important for a producer to carefully assess the food sales situation and comply with the appropriate licensing or registration requirements. To do so, a producer should identify the type and number of food products he or she will sell and whether the food poses low or high food safety risk.

Our new Law Bulletin, Selling Foods at the Farm: When Do You Need a License? will help producers assess their situations and determine their needs for appropriate licensing, registration, or inspections.  Read the bulletin on http://farmoffice.osu.edu, here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ohio’s Western Basin of Lake Erie will not be listed as ‘impaired’

EPA reaches decision on Ohio’s list of impaired waters

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

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finally rendered a decision on Ohio’s list of impaired waters following several months of delay and two lawsuits filed to compel the EPA to make a decision. (For a background on impaired waters and the two lawsuits, check out our previous blog posts here and here.)   On May 19, 2017, the EPA decided to accept the Ohio EPA’s proposed list of impaired waters for the State of Ohio.  Ohio’s list does not include the open waters in the Western Basin of Lake Erie.   However, the State of Michigan’s list of impaired waters previously approved by the EPA does include the open waters in its portion of the Western Basin of Lake Erie.

The EPA explained that the agency deferred to Ohio’s judgment not to include the open waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie on the impaired waters list.  “EPA recognizes the State’s ongoing efforts to control nutrient pollution in the Western Basin of Lake Erie,” stated Chris Korleski, EPA’s Region 5 Water Division Director and previously Ohio’s EPA Director.   “EPA understands that Ohio EPA intends to evaluate options for developing objective criteria (e.g., microcystin or other metrics) for use in making decisions regarding the Western Basin for the 2018 list.  EPA expects the development of appropriate metrics, and is committed to working with you on them.”

For now, the EPA appears satisfied with Ohio’s plan for addressing nutrient reductions in Lake Erie’s Western Basin.  It is possible, however, that additional lawsuits could be filed against the EPA in order to reconcile Ohio and Michigan’s different designations of water in the same general area.

Read the EPA’s Approval of Ohio’s Submission of the State’s Integrated Report with Respect to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act here.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized