Rule2025-16868
Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or Agency) is withdrawing the proposed rule entitled "Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category," which published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2024. After considering public comments on the proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to finalize revised technology- based effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) or pretreatment standards for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) industry, based on exercise of its statutory discretion and judgment that such revisions would not be appropriate.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 168 (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 168 (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42538-42543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16868]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 432
[EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736; FRL-8885-03-OW]
RIN 2040-AG22
Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or
Agency) is withdrawing the proposed rule entitled ``Clean Water Act
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry
Products Point Source Category,'' which published in the Federal
Register on January 23, 2024. After considering public comments on the
proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to finalize revised technology-
based effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) or pretreatment standards
for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) industry, based on exercise of
its statutory discretion and judgment that such revisions would not be
appropriate.
DATES: As of September 3, 2025, the proposed rule published on January
23, 2024, at 89 FR 4474, is withdrawn. In accordance with 40 CFR part
23, this final action shall be considered issued for the purposes of
judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 3, 2025.
Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review
of the Administrator's final action regarding effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards can only be done by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120
days after the decision is considered issued for purposes of judicial
review.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Whitlock, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202-566-1541; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14437c7d60787b777f3a4760716271547164753a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2f5cacbd6cecdc1c98cf1d6c7d4c7e2c7d2c38cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
What other information is available to support this final action?
The action is supported by several documents, including:
<bullet> Development Document for Final Action on the Meat &
Poultry Products Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards (Development Document), Document No. 821-R-25-001. This
report summarizes the technical, engineering, and economic analyses
that EPA considered in taking the final action, including cost of
regulatory options, adverse non-water quality environmental impacts,
effluent reductions and associated benefits, and calculation of the
effluent limitations considered.
<bullet> Docket Index for Final Action for the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source
Category. This document provides a list of the additional memoranda,
references, and other information the EPA considered in taking final
action on the MPP ELGs.
I. Executive Summary
On January 23, 2024, the EPA proposed to revise the existing
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
meat and poultry products point source category. The Agency solicited
comment on possible revisions and additions to the ELGs for existing
and new sources in this category. The EPA took comment on a range of
options in the proposed rule. The options included more stringent
effluent limitations on total nitrogen, new effluent limitations on
total phosphorus, updated effluent limitations for other pollutants,
new pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers, and revised
production thresholds for some of the subcategories in the existing
rule. Additionally, the EPA also considered effluent limitations on
chlorides, establishing effluent limitations for E. coli for direct
dischargers, and including conditional limits for indirect dischargers
that discharge to POTWs operating nutrient treatment technologies to
remove nutrients. Inherent in the Agency's
[[Page 42539]]
proposal was the additional option of withdrawing the proposed rule
(the no-rule option). The Agency considered the same options in this
final action, with updates informed by public input.
Informed by concerns expressed in public comments received on the
proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to finalize revised ELGs or
pretreatment standards for the MPP industry. Accordingly, the EPA is
withdrawing the proposed rule based on its statutory discretion to
determine whether such revision is ``appropriate,'' (CWA section
304(b)) and factors for establishing such requirements, including
``such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.'' (CWA
section 304(b)(1)(B); 304(b)(2)(B), 304(b)(4)(B)). In the EPA's
judgment, it is not appropriate to impose additional regulation on the
MPP industry, given Administration priorities and policy concerns,
including protecting food supply and mitigating inflationary prices for
American consumers following a protracted period of high inflation from
2020 through 2024. The MPP industry is critical to the nation's food
supply, and there is a shift in national policy toward ensuring
reduction of the cost of living and reinvigorating American industry.
In addition, past and ongoing external stressors on this industry
require sustained attention, including COVID-19 food supply and supply
chain issues, inflationary pressures, highly pathogenic avian flu
(HPAI), and the New World Screwworm (NWS). For all of these reasons,
the EPA is exercising its statutory discretion to choose how to marshal
and prioritize its resources and is not proceeding with revisions to
the MPP ELGs or establishing pretreatment standards for this industry,
as explained in section VI of this document. In addition, the agency's
analysis of regulatory options considered shows that they would
negatively impact the environment and public health in the form of
increased air pollution and solid waste. This final action avoids these
negative impacts because the EPA has chosen the no-rule option.
II. Public Participation
During the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule (89 FR
4474, January 23, 2024) (from January 23, 2024, to March 25, 2024), the
EPA received more than 5,000 public comment submissions from private
citizens, industry representatives, technology vendors, government
entities, environmental groups, and trade associations. The EPA also
hosted three public hearings during the public comment period--an
online hearing January 24, 2024, an in-person hearing January 31, 2024,
and another online hearing March 20, 2024. These hearings had a
combined total of 362 attendees, 46 of whom registered to provide
comment on the proposed rule. Available documents and recordings from
each public hearing include transcripts of the presentations and a list
of attendees (document control number (DCN) MP01489, DCN MP01489A1,
MP01489A2, DCN MP02001, DCN MP02001A1, DCN MP02001A2, DCN MP02002, and
DCN MP02002A1, DCN MP02002A1).
III. Background
Over more than 50 years, EPA, states, and local partners have
worked collaboratively to implement the CWA and there have been
significant reductions in pollution entering our nation's waterways.
Under one component of CWA implementation, the EPA is to issue effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source
performance standards for industrial dischargers. Before the passage of
the Clean Water Act, the nation's surface waters were significantly
polluted. The Cuyahoga River became the symbol of polluted waters when
it caught fire at least a dozen times prior to the Clean Water Act's
passage in 1972. Under the Act, pollution discharges have been
significantly reduced and our nation's waterbodies have recovered.
Waters that were once contaminated are clean and safe for wildlife and
recreation. A key component of this recovery has been reductions in
point-source discharges of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and
phosphorus, under the Act. While additional reductions in nitrogen and
phosphorous loads to certain waters may further improve water quality,
the Agency and its partners have generally shifted focus to non-point
sources of these pollutants. The most significant sources of nitrogen
and phosphorus loads to our nations waters today are non-point sources.
In taking this final action, the EPA considered revisions of the
ELGs and promulgation of pretreatment standards for the MPP industry
based on Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT),
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Best Available Demonstrated
Control Technology (BADCT) for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS). These types of effluent guidelines
and standards are summarized in the preamble for the proposed
regulation (89 FR 4474, January 23, 2024).
As part of the EPA ELG review process, the EPA conducted a cross-
industry review of publicly available discharge monitoring report (DMR)
and toxics release inventory (TRI) data from 2015 on nutrient
discharges from industrial point source categories. This review
identified industries, based on their discharges of nutrients in
wastewater and the potential to reduce their nutrient discharges, that
may be candidates for ELG development or revision and prioritized them
for further review. As a result of the cross-industry review of
nutrients in industrial wastewater and the further review of the MPP
category, the EPA began a detailed study of the MPP industry. The goals
of the MPP detailed study were to gain a better understanding of the
industry and evaluate whether the ELGs should be revised. In 2021, in
the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Preliminary Plan
15), the EPA announced the agency's intent to develop a rulemaking to
revise the existing discharge standards for the MPP industry (USEPA.
2021. EPA-821-R-21-003).
On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Cape Fear River Watch, Rural
Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake,
Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water
Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for
Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint
alleging that the EPA's failure to revise ELGs and to promulgate
pretreatment standards for the MPP category constituted failures to act
by statutory deadlines in violation of the CWA and Administrative
Procedures Act (``APA'') (Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 1:22-cv-03809 (D.D.C)).
Although the EPA was in the process of conducting the MPP
rulemaking, as announced in its Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan 15 (86 FR 51155, September 14, 2021), the EPA had not publicly
announced any specific timeline for completion. The parties initiated
settlement discussions, resulting in a proposed consent decree with
deadlines for completion of the rulemaking, which the EPA entered into
after public notice and comment (88 FR 12930, March 1, 2023). Under the
consent decree, the EPA had obligations to sign a notice of proposed
rulemaking by December 13, 2023, which was completed, and to sign a
decision taking final action by August 31, 2025 (Consent
[[Page 42540]]
Decree, Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. EPA, Case No. 1:22-cv-03809-BAH
(05/03/23)). Through this action withdrawing the proposed rule, the EPA
is fulfilling its consent decree obligation to take final action with
respect to this rulemaking.
IV. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Description
The MPP point source category includes facilities ``engaged in the
slaughtering, dressing and packing of meat and poultry products for
human consumption and/or animal food and feeds. Meat and poultry
products for human consumption include meat and poultry from cattle,
hogs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other fowl as well as
sausages, luncheon meats and cured, smoked or canned or other prepared
meat and poultry products from purchased carcasses and other materials.
Meat and poultry products for animal food and feeds include animal
oils, meat meal and facilities that render grease and tallow from
animal fat, bones and meat scraps'' (40 CFR 432.1). For more
information on how facilities were classified, see the Meat and Poultry
Products (MPP) Facility Characterization Data Memorandum (USEPA. 2025.
DCN MP01447). For number of facilities by process and discharge type,
see the Development Document for Final Action on the Meat and Poultry
Point Source Category (DCN MP02006), Section 2.
The EPA evaluated technologies available to control and treat
wastewater generated by the MPP industry. The EPA has not identified
any practical difference in types of treatment technologies between
meat products and poultry products facilities. Some MPP processes
result in wastewater streams with higher concentrations of pollutants,
but facilities across the industry generally contain the same
pollutants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, oil & grease, biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and chlorides. See
the Development Document (DCN MP02006) and the proposed rule, Clean
Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Point Source Category proposed rule (89 FR 4474,
January 23, 2024) for more information on control and treatment
technologies.
V. Data Collection After Proposal and Comment Responses
Following the publication of the MPP proposed rule, the EPA
received additional data from industry and assessed comments from
stakeholders on the proposal. This additional information resulted in
updates to the methodologies the EPA used in the engineering, economic,
and environmental assessments.
A. Survey Follow-up and New Analytical Data
<bullet> Survey: Following proposal, the EPA continued to conduct
follow up with individual respondents to coordinate corrections to
responses or obtain missing responses. The EPA also followed up with
some facilities to clarify and further support financial information.
The MPP Questionnaires were taken offline on April 1, 2024, and the EPA
used this as the complete questionnaire dataset with 2,261 responses
received from eligible facilities. The EPA also conducted additional
and more complex analyses using the questionnaire data.
<bullet> Site Visits: The EPA visited two additional rendering
facilities and discussed issues specific to renderers. To confirm and
support their comments, industry provided the EPA with additional data
for renderers, specifically regarding boiler condensate and high levels
of BOD. Industry also discussed land availability for facilities in
urban areas.
<bullet> Meetings with Industry: The EPA met with industry to
discuss the status of the rulemaking and to get clarification on
industry concerns expressed in their public comments on EPA estimated
compliance costs, pretreatment standards for indirect discharging
facilities, and chlorides removal technology. The EPA requested the
industry representatives provide the EPA with specific costing
information to support their concerns. The EPA also met with GELITA
USA, a gelatin, collagen, and peptide manufacturer, and discussed the
differences in rendering operations and gelatin operations as a follow-
up to their comments on the proposal. The EPA also met with several
representatives from industry to discuss their comments on chlorides
treatment.
B. Comment Response
The EPA received 4,369 mass mail public comments and posted 810
comments to Federal Docket Management System, resulting in 611 unique
comments on the proposed rulemaking. The EPA considered the comments,
revised existing analysis and conducted updated analyses. For example,
comments and data on rendering wastewater led the EPA to make
adjustments to the engineering and economic analyses. Comments on land
availability led to additional analysis on availability and costs. Full
response to comments can be found in Response to Public Comments on
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and
Poultry Products Point Source Category (DCN MP01459).
VI. Basis for Final Action
A. Rationale for Withdrawing the Proposed Rule
Informed by concerns expressed in public comments received on the
proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to finalize revised ELGs or
pretreatment standards for the MPP industry, based on exercise of its
statutory discretion and judgment that such regulations would not be
appropriate, for the reasons discussed below.
Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has broad discretion to consider
the factors described here in this section in determining whether to
revise existing effluent guidelines. Unlike the mandatory requirement
to promulgate ELGs reflecting Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable by 1989, the EPA is required to revise such ELGs only ``if
appropriate.'' See CWA section 304(b) (EPA ``shall . . . publish . . .
regulations, providing guidelines for effluent limitations, and, at
least annually thereafter, revise, if appropriate, such regulations.'')
(emphasis added). The term ``if appropriate'' is not further defined in
the statute, giving the EPA broad discretionary authority to assess
whether revision is ``appropriate'' in light of Administration
policies, priorities, and other factors. See Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S.
743, 752 (2015) (``One does not need to open a dictionary in order to
realize the capaciousness of this phrase. In particular, `appropriate'
is the classic broad and all-encompassing term that naturally and
traditionally includes consideration of all the relevant factors.'')
(internal citation omitted).
Here, although the Act requires consideration of certain specified
factors when establishing new or revised ELGs, the requirement to
assess whether revision of these ELGs is ``appropriate'' is not
expressly tied to these factors. See Our Children's Earth Foundation v.
EPA, 527 F.3d 842, 851 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the CWA does not
mandate use of a technology-based approach in reviewing ELGs to
determine whether revision is appropriate). As the Ninth Circuit found
in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, the EPA is ``not required . . . to
revise an ELG simply because it was out of date or not comprehensive.''
140 F.4th 1193, 1215 (9th Cir. 2025). The Court explained that ``the
decision whether to initiate a rulemaking to
[[Page 42541]]
revise any given ELG is ``discretionary[,] as indicated by the `if
appropriate' language.'' Id. at 1216, citing Our Children's Earth
Foundation, 527 F.3d at 850-51(9th Cir. 2025). Indeed, the Court
specifically held that ``it was within the EPA's discretion to
prioritize the revision of certain ELGs over others by . . . seek[ing]
to identify where revision will do the most good'' (Id. at 1215) and
that '' the EPA ``has broad discretion to choose how best to marshal
its limited resources and personnel to carry out its delegated
responsibilities'' Id. at 1216 (internal citation omitted). Based on
this statutory discretion, the Waterkeeper court ``reject[ed]
Petitioners' apparent assumption . . . that EPA acted in a manner that
was arbitrary and capricious simply because EPA had evidence certain
ELGs are out of date but declined to act.'' Id. at 1216-17. Cf.
American Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 182 F.3d 1261, 1268-9 (11th Cir.
1999) (``Logic dictates that an agency must have some discretion in
setting an agenda for rulemaking and excluding some matters
categorically. Otherwise rulemaking would be very difficult because an
agency would be unable to concentrate its scarce resource on a
particular problem''); Sierra Club v. EPA, 828 F.2d 783, 797 (D.C. Cir.
1987) (``Because `a court is in general ill-suited to review the order
in which an agency conducts its business,' we are properly hesitant to
upset an agency's priorities by ordering it to expedite one specific
action, and thus to give it precedence over others'' (internal citation
omitted); American Horse Protection Assn. v. USDA, 812 F.2d 1 (D.C.
Cir. 1986) (``Review under the `arbitrary and capricious' tag line . .
. encompasses a range of levels of deference to the agency . . . . [A]n
agency's refusal to initiate rulemaking proceedings is at the high end
of that range . . . Such a refusal is to be overturned only in the
rarest and most compelling of circumstances.'' (internal citation
omitted).
Accordingly, the EPA has broad discretion to consider the
Administration's priorities and policy concerns discussed here in this
section in determining whether it is ``appropriate'' to revise an ELG--
and is not specifically constrained by the statutory factors that any
such revised ELG must meet.
Even if the EPA's decision as to whether it is ``appropriate'' to
revise an ELG is constrained by the statutory factors for establishing
ELGs, those statutory factors expressly include ``such other factors as
the Administrator deems appropriate.'' See CWA section 304(b)(2)(B);
304(b)(1)(B); and 304(b)(4)(B) (authorizing consideration of ``such
other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate'' in assessing
Best Available Technology (BAT), Best Practicable Control Technology
(BPT), and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT),
respectively). That the term ``appropriate'' is used repeatedly, first
in the statutory requirement to identify candidates for revision, and
again, in the statutory provisions governing the establishment of new
or revised standards, underscores the EPA's broad statutory discretion
to prioritize ELGs for revision. Accordingly, the EPA considered the
Administration's priorities and policy concerns discussed here in this
section, in addition to the specified statutory factors, in deciding
not to revise the ELGs and pretreatment standards for this industry.
See Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
(Congress intended that the EPA have discretion ``to decide how to
account for the consideration factors, and how much weight to give each
factor'').
Based on these statutory authorities, the EPA has decided that it
is not appropriate to finalize the proposed rule considering the
Administration's priorities and policy concerns including protecting
the food supply, mitigating inflationary pressures on food pricing for
American consumers, and reinvigorating American industry.
At the core of the EPA's decision is the understanding that the MPP
industry plays a critical role in the nation's food supply chain, and
meat and poultry processors have faced an unprecedented disruption in
operations and costs in recent years as a result of several factors,
including COVID-19 food supply and supply chain issues, inflationary
pressures, and the unprecedented outbreak of avian flu and New World
Screwworm, as discussed below. Establishing more stringent ELGs and
pretreatment standards for the MPP industry would result in further
diversion of the industry's resources at a critical time, potentially
reducing the number of MPP facilities due to the cumulative impacts of
multiple economic stressors on the industry, thus further reducing the
competitiveness of this industry. The closure or reduced capacity of
MPP facilities, even if within the range of impacts typically
considered to be economically achievable, could have significant
impacts on the nation's food supply and pricing, as was evidenced
during the COVID-19 national emergency. Additional regulation may also
divert the industry's attention from focusing on measures to diversify,
increase production and thus food availability and affordability, and
combating avian flu and NWS, all of which are crucial to protecting the
nation's food supply, mitigating higher prices and reducing the cost of
living for the American public.
Recent Presidential memoranda, Executive Orders, and actions taken
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reflect the
Administration's priorities and policy concerns that have implications
for the MPP industry. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a
memorandum titled, ``Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American
Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.'' This memorandum
highlights inflationary pressures that have affected industrial
production and food prices in recent years and calls for action to
reduce cost-of-living through deregulatory actions. As context, from
2020 through 2024, American consumers weathered significant impacts
from inflationary pressures. According to USDA, U.S. food prices rose
by 23.6% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing the overall consumer price index
increase of 21.2% (DCN MP02048). Additionally, data from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that as of March 2025 the 12-month
increase in national food prices (3%) continued to outpace the 12-month
increase in aggregate Consumer Price Index (2.4%). This increase
follows a period of significant food price inflation, with the rate
peaking at 11.4% in 2022.
The importance of ensuring food availability and affordability is a
longstanding and durable goal of American policy. For example, the Food
Security Act of 1985 included provisions to ensure that consumers had
access to an abundant and affordable food supply. The Act highlighted
the role of agriculture price support programs and their impacts to
consumer costs for food and fiber. The Act addressed (i.e., moderated)
crop price support levels to support the affordability and availability
of feed grains for livestock and thereby ensure affordable meat prices.
Underpinning the importance of safe abundant, affordable food supply,
Congress takes up a new farm bill every five years. Further, during the
COVID-19 national emergency President Trump signed Executive Order
13917, titled Delegating Authority Under the Defense Production Act
with Respect to Food Supply Chain Resources During the National
Emergency Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19, April 28, 2020 (85 FR
26313;
[[Page 42542]]
May 1, 2020). This order utilized authority under the Defense
Production Act to support ongoing operation of meat and poultry
processing facilities at that time. This order cited that ``any
unnecessary closures can quickly have a large effect on the food supply
chain. For example, closure of a single large beef processing facility
can result in the loss of over 10 million individual servings of beef
in a single day. Similarly, under established supply chains, closure of
a single meat or poultry processing facility can severely disrupt the
supply of protein to an entire grocery store chain.'' The tenet of this
executive order--that the operation of meat and poultry processing
facilities is essential to the secure domestic food supply chain--
remains true.
Accordingly, the EPA examined the potential food price and
availability impacts of establishing more stringent ELGs for the MPP
industry. The EPA found that the closure or reduced capacity of MPP
facilities resulting from such regulation could have significant
impacts on food prices and availability. As evidenced by the COVID-19
national emergency, closures and reduced capacity of MPP facilities
disrupted the availability of food and created short- and long-term
price impacts. See MPP Proposed Rule, 89 FR 4474, 4492 (January 23,
2024) (``our overreliance on just a handful of giant processors leaves
us all vulnerable, with any disruptions at these bottlenecks rippling
through our food system''). In addition, the Agency's analysis of
regulatory options for this final action shows that the no-rule option
will prevent between $1.1 to $7.8 billion in capital costs and prevent
$315 million to $1.3 billion in annual operation and maintenance costs
associated with compliance (See Table 7-12 of Development Document,
DCNMP02006). Given that demand for MPP products is relatively inelastic
to price changes (i.e., demand for MPP products holds steady even when
prices increase), it is reasonable to assume that a portion of these
costs would be paid by American families in the form of increased food
prices.
Public comments further support the EPA's findings regarding
potential impacts of MPP facility closures and reduced capacity on food
price and availability. Several public comments described how COVID-19
resulted in temporary backlogs of meat processing, which led to meat
shortages at grocery stores, and higher prices for the meat that was
available. Commenters stated that the COVID-19 national emergency
revealed how consolidation in the industry can negatively impact food
supply and pricing--and conversely, the importance of diversification
in the industry to help protect against such impacts. As one commenter
noted, ``[s]mall and midsize meat processors are essential to economic
success of multiple sectors of our overall economy. When we risk losing
any processor, we risk detrimental economical outcomes.'' (Kentucky
Ass'n of Meat Processors, Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736-0846-A1).
Facility closures that would result from the proposed regulations would
reduce diversification in the industry, potentially resulting in the
food price increases evidenced by the COVID-19 national emergency.
Additionally, on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a
memorandum titled, ``America First Trade Policy.'' This memorandum
called for action to help and not hinder the competitiveness of
American industry, which is relevant to the Meat and Poultry Industry
that faces trade competition with foreign producers, including in
Mexico, Australia, and Canada (DCN MP01465). Further, on January 31,
2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065; February 6, 2025). This
order states, ``It is the policy of my Administration to significantly
reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national
security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen.''
In light of these priorities and policy concerns, the EPA
considered the potential impacts of revised ELGs and pretreatment
standards on compliance costs and competitiveness of the MPP industry
in a global marketplace. The EPA's analysis of regulatory options for
this final action shows that the no-rule option avoids the closure of
between 10 and 93 facilities in the MPP industry (see table 14-1 of the
Development Document, DCNMP02006). These closures would be associated
with the short-term loss of 3,199 to 26,657 American jobs (see table
16-2 of the Development Document, DCNMP02006).
Public comments echoed the EPA's concerns regarding impacts on the
competitiveness of the MPP industry. See Kentucky Association of Meat
Processors, Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736-0846-A1 (``Causing the closure
of multiple MPP's would hurt competition and our economy.''); Michigan
Farm Bureau, Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736-0697-A1(``Meat and poultry
processors, especially small and medium sized processors, already
struggle with high regulatory costs and steep price competition from
foreign sources who may not face the same regulations and costs we
incur to protect the environment, worker safety, and public health.'').
One commenter also noted that 85% of the beef industry is controlled by
four big meat packers, two of which are foreign-owned--and expressed
concern that the closure of smaller, locally owned businesses as a
result of increased regulatory compliance costs ``means more of our
hard-earned money will leave our local economies and will be funneled
into countries other than our own.'' Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736-1449.
Several commenters indicated that inflation is elevated especially for
the food industry and is likely to impact consumers. See, e.g., Public
Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736-0712-A1(Iowa Farm Bureau): (the proposed
rule ``may limit the availability of meat to consumers during a time of
significant inflationary pressures''); Public Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-
0736-0846-A1(Kentucky Association of Meat Processors) (``In a time of
record inflation, consumers cannot afford these costs. Meat prices
already outpace other commodities in increasing inflation.''); Public
Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736-0870-A1(Office of the Attorney General of
Kansas et al.) (``Federal statistics show that inflation, especially
for meat and poultry, remains elevated.''). The EPA agrees that
additional regulation on the MPP industry would only exacerbate the
inflationary pressures that are already causing high food prices for
the American public.
Further, in March 2020, an outbreak of avian flu (HPAI) first
occurred at a commercial turkey facility in the United States, and over
the five years since then at least 1,400 outbreaks have occurred in
more than 600 counties nationwide, leading to the death of some 135
million birds (DCN MP01465, DCN MP01477). Though largely affecting egg
laying hens, the outbreak has also impacted broiler production and has
had a pronounced effect on turkey production with 14.3 million turkeys
affected since 2022 (DCN MP01490). While avian flu has been a threat in
the past, this outbreak has affected more species than in past
outbreaks (DCN MP01492). Thus, avian flu constitutes an ongoing
economic stressor on the industry, as MPP facilities spend time,
attention and resources on addressing the outbreak. Additional
regulation would add to the cumulative economic impacts on this
industry, potentially resulting in more closures and production
slowdowns that would impact the nation's food supply and food costs
while diverting
[[Page 42543]]
industry's attention from focusing on an ongoing threat that requires
continued vigilance on the part of the industry.
The New World Screwworm (NWS) also presents a threat to the meat
and poultry sector. Once a pervasive problem for the U.S. livestock
sector, the NWS was eliminated from North and Central America through a
multinational effort led by the USDA in the 1960s. The value of this
eradication campaign to the U.S. cattle industry has been estimated as
approximately $2.3 billion per year (DCN MP02205). However, in 2022 the
NWS reappeared in Panama, has since spread northward to Mexico, and is
now considered to pose a serious threat to U.S. livestock producers.
The NWS is particularly dangerous for the meat and poultry sector where
many animals are raised in close confinement where the parasite can
spread quickly. In June of this year, in an attempt to combat the
further spread of the NWS, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture announced
the opening of an $8.5 million sterile NWS fly dispersal facility in
South Texas, and on July 9, 2025, ordered the closure of livestock
trade through all southern ports of entry to prevent the spread of the
parasite into the country (DCN MP02206). Like avian flu, the NWS
creates economic stress and uncertainty that could potentially impact
food supply, prices, and the competitiveness of the MPP industry.
Based on the cumulative consideration of Administration priorities,
policy concerns, and these factors in exercise of the Agency's
statutory authority, the EPA has determined that it is not appropriate
to impose additional regulation on this industry. The MPP industry is
critical to the nation's food supply, there is a shift in national
policy toward reducing cost of living and reinvigorating American
industry, and past and ongoing external stressors on this industry are
requiring sustained attention--COVID-19 food supply and supply chain
issues, inflationary pressures, avian flu, and NWS. In addition, the
EPA found that such regulation would result in adverse non-water-
quality environmental impacts, a required factor for consideration in
the statute. See CWA 304(b)(1)(B); 304(b)(2)(B); 304(b)(4)(B).
Specifically, EPA's analysis shows that the regulatory options
considered would increase energy consumption thereby increasing ozone
and fine particulate air pollution, causing between $24 million and
$359 million in adverse human health impacts (see table 9-9 of the
Development Document DCNMP02006). The regulatory options considered
would also result in between 2.5 billion to more than 8.4 billion
pounds of solid waste, which would be sent to landfills or land-
applied. Studies have linked land-application of these solid wastes--
including animal blood, bodily fluids, pathogens, and excrement--to
negative environmental, human health, and economic impacts. Properties
surrounding the land-application sites can be impacted due to
contaminants percolating into groundwater and being transported via
groundwater and runoff to other areas. Degraded surface water
conditions resulting from these contaminants can negatively affect
aquatic life, including by inducing fish kills. In humans, exposure in
high enough concentrations has been linked to a range of negative
impacts, from gastrointestinal issues to respiratory issues, cancers,
and death. See Development Document, section 9 (DCNMP02006). Because
the EPA has chosen the no-rule option, this final action avoids both
the costs associated with regulatory compliance and the significant
negative impacts from increased air pollution and solid waste.
Therefore, the EPA is exercising its statutory discretion to choose
how to marshal its resources and is not proceeding with revisions to
the MPP ELGs or establishing pretreatment standards for this industry.
Exercising its statutory discretion to not finalize ELGs or
pretreatment standards for this sector is consistent with the
Administration priorities expressed by the Presidential memoranda and
Executive Orders described above.
B. Options Considered
For this final action, the EPA evaluated three regulatory options
that were included in the proposed rule. For a description of these
options, see preamble to the proposed regulation. (89 FR 4474, January
23, 2024). In evaluating these options, the EPA considered the
statutory factors for the specified levels of control technology for
ELGs and pretreatment standards: BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
The analyses used to support evaluation of these factors were updated
after the proposal to incorporate new data, as well as feedback
received during the public comment period. Those updated analyses can
be found in the Development Document (DCN MP02006), including the EPA's
analysis on technological availability (section 7.2); cost/economic
achievability (sections 13 through15); effluent reduction benefits
(section 23); non-water-quality environmental impacts (section 9); and
passthrough/interference (section 5.2).
The agency also evaluated a no-rule option that was represented by
baseline conditions in the proposed rule and its analyses of the sector
in that action. This option was inherent in the Agency's proposal, and
apparent in the terminology used in the proposed rule. Specifically,
the EPA's proposal indicated that the Agency was seeking comments on
``possible'' (defined as something that may or may not occur) revisions
to the existing ELGs. See ``Possible,'' Merriam-Webster, <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible</a> (last visited June 16,
2025). The availability of this option to withdraw the proposed rule
was further evidenced by public comments requesting that the Agency not
issue revisions and instead retain the existing ELGs for the MPP source
category. Additionally, the EPA solicited comment not only on the
proposed options, but ``any other permutation of these options'' (89 FR
4489, January 23, 2024) and ``all aspects of this proposal.'' Id. at
4488.
After full consideration of the statutory factors, the EPA decided
not to finalize revised ELGs or pretreatment standards for the MPP
industry. The EPA found that it was not appropriate to finalize Option
1, the preferred option at proposal, because the increased regulatory
compliance costs could impact food supply, food prices, and the
competitiveness of the MPP industry and was thus incompatible with
Administration priorities and policy concerns, as discussed above. The
other two proposed options would have expanded on Option 1 by including
more stringent requirements that would be applied to more MPP
facilities, thus making these options more incompatible than Option 1
with Administration priorities and policy concerns. The EPA's decision
to withdraw the proposed rule was further supported by the non-water-
quality environmental impacts associated with all of the proposed
options (See Development Document, section 9. DCN MP02006).
Accordingly, after considering the statutory factors with respect to
each of the proposed options, the EPA is exercising its statutory
discretion to take final action withdrawing the proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 432
Environmental protection, Meat and meat products, Poultry and
poultry products, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control.
Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-16868 Filed 9-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 3, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.