Category: Regulatory

Looking into Our (Slightly Hazy) Crystal Ball: What Will the Mississippi Cannabis Market Look Like?

When you do what we do, you get a lot of calls and a lot of questions. Many of the calls and questions are not fruitful. Quite honestly, some of the calls are from folks whose interest in and experience with cannabis is, we suspect, on a purely personal and leisurely level. In the words of Hyman Roth, this is the business we’ve chosen.

But one legitimate question we’re often asked is what we think the cannabis market will look like in Mississippi. And, more specifically, whether Mississippi’s new medical cannabis regime will be similar to the one in Oklahoma.

It’s a loaded question, and one we suspect many questioners don’t fully appreciate. On the one hand, Oklahoma’s medical cannabis program has been compared to the Wild West. At last count, there were more medical cannabis dispensaries than liquor stores or supermarkets in the state. Many have concluded that this is a bad thing and/or that the program is a failure. Others have deemed the program a triumph of capitalism, a survival-of-the-fittest trial where only the “best” will survive.

As is often the case, we think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

On the one hand, the obvious and primary similarity between the programs is the absence of an expressed cap on the number of licenses available. While most states limit the number of licenses available, neither Oklahoma nor Mississippi does so. Many believe this feature will lead to Mississippi following the lead of Oklahoma in terms of the proliferation of dispensaries throughout the Magnolia State.

On the other hand, there are a number of differences between the two states and their statutes that indicate to us that Mississippi’s regime will differ in several important ways – ways we are seeing play out now. First, while the license fee for a dispensary in Oklahoma is $2,500, the fee in Mississippi is $25,000, 10 times the amount. And that amount is owed annually and is in addition to the initial $15,000 application fee. As a practical matter, and for better or worse, this feature alone should significantly cull the number of dispensaries because it provides a substantial barrier to entry into the industry.

Second, there may be significantly fewer locations available to open a dispensary in Mississippi than one would expect due to several geographic-limiting features of the law. Initially, localities have until May 3 to opt out of the medical cannabis regime, and several cities have already done so. Also, dispensaries cannot be located within 1,000 feet of any church, school, or daycare facility. For those unfamiliar with Mississippi, it may be tough to find anywhere in the state that isn’t within 1,000 feet of a church. Even more, the law forbids one dispensary from being within 1,500 feet from another dispensary, and dispensaries are only permissible in commercially zoned areas.

Third, the cannabis industry examining the Mississippi market will have the benefit of having lived through the Oklahoma experience. This is likely to minimize the “goldrush” mentality seen in Oklahoma’s early days. Instead, look for larger players to let the dust settle and come in looking to acquire operators who proved successful breaking out of the initial melee.

Conclusion

It seems possible that, at least in the early years, the Mississippi medical cannabis regime may more closely resemble Oklahoma than a state like Florida with strict limitations on the number of licenses. But our prediction is that certain aspects of Mississippi law and culture will lead to less of a free-for-all at the outset, hopefully leading to a more efficient and more orderly transition to a rational cannabis market in Mississippi.

Article By Whitt Steineker and Slates C. Veazey of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Italian Garante Bans Google Analytics

On June 23, 2022, Italy’s data protection authority (the “Garante”) determined that a website’s use of the audience measurement tool Google Analytics is not compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as the tool transfers personal data to the United States, which does not offer an adequate level of data protection. In making this determination, the Garante joins other EU data protection authorities, including the French and Austrian regulators, that also have found use of the tool to be unlawful.

The Garante determined that websites using Google Analytics collected via cookies personal data including user interactions with the website, pages visited, browser information, operating system, screen resolution, selected language, date and time of page views and user device IP address. This information was transferred to the United States without the additional safeguards for personal data required under the GDPR following the Schrems II determination, and therefore faced the possibility of governmental access. In the Garante’s ruling, website operator Caffeina Media S.r.l. was ordered to bring its processing into compliance with the GDPR within 90 days, but the ruling has wider implications as the Garante commented that it had received many “alerts and queries” relating to Google Analytics. It also stated that it called upon “all controllers to verify that the use of cookies and other tracking tools on their websites is compliant with data protection law; this applies in particular to Google Analytics and similar services.”

Article By the Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

CMS Reduces COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Surveys and Rescinds Surveyor Vaccination Requirements

In two recent memoranda, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made changes to previously issued survey guidance related to COVID-19 vaccination issues.

In QSO-22-17-ALL, CMS modified the frequency by which State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations will survey for compliance with the federal staff vaccine mandate applicable to health care providers and suppliers (discussed in a prior post).  Noting that 95% of providers and suppliers surveyed have been found in substantial compliance with the rule, CMS is eliminating the previous requirement that State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations survey for compliance with the vaccine mandate during every survey.  Review of compliance with vaccine mandate is still required, however, during initial surveys, recertification surveys, and in response to specific complaint allegations that allege non-compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  This means that a State Agency or Accreditation Organization is not required to review compliance with the staff vaccination requirement during, for example, a validation survey or a complaint survey unrelated to compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  A State Agency or Accreditation Organization may still choose to expand any survey to include review of vaccine mandate compliance; however, the new guidance should result in a reduction in survey frequency of this issue for providers and suppliers.

In QSO-22-18-ALL, CMS rescinded, in its entirety, the previously issued QSO-22-10-ALL memorandum, which had mandated that surveyors of State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations be vaccinated for COVID-19.  However, CMS noted that the State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations were responsible for compliance and prohibited providers and suppliers from asking surveyors for proof of vaccination.  While CMS is now encouraging vaccination of surveyors performing federal oversight surveys, the mandate for vaccination is no longer in effect.

Article By Allen R. Killworth of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Governor Rolls Back California COVID-19 Executive Orders & Cal/OSHA Releases Draft Permanent COVID-19 Standard

On June 17, 2022, Governor Newsom issued an executive order terminating certain provisions of prior executive orders related to Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Some of the terminated orders were no longer necessary due to changes in the ETS. For example, previously the Governor had issued an executive order stating exclusion periods could not be longer than California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines or local ordinances. However, since the ETS now defers to CDPH guidance on isolation and quarantine, the Governor has rescinded his prior executive order on this issue. Moreover, Cal/OSHA has issued guidance for employers on COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine that aligns with CDPH requirements.

The current version of the ETS remains in effect until the end of 2022. However, Cal/OSHA won’t be done with COVID-19 regulations in 2023. The agency is currently working on a permanent COVID-19 Standard. Recently, the draft of the proposed regulation was released.

The draft regulation carries over many of the employer obligations from the current ETS. The following are some of the proposed requirements:

  • COVID-19 procedures, either included in their Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) or a separate document.
  • Exclusion and prevention requirements for positive employees and close contacts.
  • Employers would continue to be required to provide testing to employees who have a close contact in the workplace.
  • Employers would continue to have notice requirements for COVID-19 exposure.
  • Employers would continue to have to provide face coverings to employees.
  • Employers would continue to have reporting and recordkeeping requirements for COVID-19 cases and outbreaks in the workplace.

Currently, no public hearing has been set for the proposed permanent COVID-19 Standard, so it is uncertain how soon the regulations may be implemented.

Article By Sean Paisan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Takes Effect: What Importers Need to Know

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) is in effect as of June 21, 2022. Congress passed the Act in December 2021 to increase enforcement of longstanding U.S. policy prohibiting the importation of goods, or components thereof, made with forced labor and to create a “rebuttable presumption” that merchandise from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) or by an entity on the UFLPA Entity List is made with forced labor and thereby prohibited from entry into the United States. The rebuttable presumption applies to downstream products that incorporate inputs from XUAR, regardless of where the finished products are manufactured, including goods from outside XUAR in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), or in third countries. There is no de minimis provision in the law – any prohibited content, no matter how small, will make a product subject to the rebuttable presumption made by the law. If an importer can demonstrate by “clear and convincing” evidence that the goods were not produced wholly or in part by forced labor, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will grant an “exception” to the presumption. The UFLPA provides for increased detentions and seizures of merchandise and potential civil and criminal penalties. See prior GT Alerts on the UFLPA.

Pursuant to the UFLPA, a multi-agency task force chaired by the Department of Homeland Security was mandated to develop a strategy for the Act’s implementation. On June 17, in anticipation of the June 21 effective date, DHS released the “Strategy to Prevent the Importation of Goods Mined, Produced, or Manufactured with Forced Labor in the People’s Republic of China” (Enforcement Strategy), which includes:

  • An assessment of risk of importing goods mined, produced, or manufactured, wholly or in part, in the PRC; according to the strategy, complex supply chains that touch XUAR are “highly susceptible to contamination by goods made using forced labor.”
  • A list of entities affiliated with forced labor; therefore, their products are subject to the presumption that their goods are prohibited from entry. The Entity list will be updated multiple times per year and will be publicly available.
  • A list of high priority sectors and products including apparel and textiles, cotton and cotton products, polysilicon, and tomato products. Other products listed include footwear, nails, electronics, and toys.
  • Guidance to importers advising that companies need heightened due diligence to ensure compliance with UFLPA and to identify potential supply chain exposure to Xinjiang. Supply chain tracing is the general method to demonstrate that goods are free of inputs from Xinjiang, but CBP expects that barriers to supply chain tracing may make it difficult for importers to be compliant and has stated that third-party audits alone are insufficient to demonstrate due diligence.

Should CBP detain goods on suspicion of being made wholly or in part with forced labor, the importer has options. It can re-export the goods (up until CBP seizes them); it can abandon the goods; it can seek an “exception” for the goods, to get them released from CBP custody; it can also provide information to CBP demonstrating that the goods are not subject in any way to the Act. The evidence and documentation needed for the latter two must be “clear and convincing.”

It should be noted that in order to obtain an “exception” for goods that have been detained, an importer must meet all three of the following requirements:

  • Provide clear and convincing evidence that the detained goods were not made in whole or in part with forced labor, or were sourced from entities on the Entity List.
  • Fully and substantively respond to any questions from CBP.
  • Show that it has complied with all of the requirements set out in the Enforcement Strategy and CBP’s Operational Guidance (i.e., due diligence, supply chain tracing and management, etc.).

The Enforcement Strategy document provides importers with guidance in the following three areas:

  • Due diligence, effective supply chain tracing, and supply chain management measures to ensure that no goods violating the Act enter the importer’s supply chain.
  • The type, nature, and extent of evidence that demonstrates that goods originating in China were not mined (or grown), produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang.
  • The type, nature, and extent of evidence that demonstrates goods originating in China, including goods detained under Section 307 of the Tariff Act, were not mined (or grown), produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labor.

CBP has made it clear that should there be a detention, participants in the Customs and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program (C-TPAT) will be prioritized for review of submissions to rebut the presumption that the merchandise was made with forced labor.

Importers may wish to plan for contingencies should CBP detain imported merchandise, map complex supply chains and review purchase agreements and supplier codes of conduct.

Article By Laura Siegel Rabinowitz and Donald S. Stein of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more legislative legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Health Care Providers on Alert: Two Hospitals Penalized for Continuous Noncompliance with the Hospital Price Transparency Rule

We previously discussed the requirements of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule (“Rule”) on health care providers and health plans, as well as CMS’s proposal to increase penalties for a hospital’s failure to comply with the Rule.  About a year and a half after the Rule became effective, CMS has now imposed its first set of civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) on Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee, which have been fined $883,180 and $214,320, respectively.

The Rule requires, in part, hospitals to make public a machine-readable file containing a list of all standard charges for all items and services, such as, e.g., supplies, room and board, and use of the facility, among other items.  See 45 C.F.R. § 180.40(a); id. at § 180.20.  The Rule also requires hospitals to display shoppable services in a consumer-friendly manner.  See id. at § 180.60(d)(2); id. at § 180.60(b).  The goal of these specific requirements, in addition to those set forth in the remainder of the Rule, is to provide consumers with sufficient information about the charges for certain items and services by requiring health care providers and health plans to be publicly transparent about such charges.

Based on CMS’s CMP letters, dated June 7, 2022, Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee were non-compliant with the aforementioned specific requirements of the Rule.  The chronology of events is important to understand how CMS ended up issuing its CMP letters.

Northside Hospital Atlanta

For Northside Hospital Atlanta:

  • CMS documented the hospital’s non-compliance since March 24, 2021.
  • CMS issued a Warning Letter, dated April 19, 2021, to the hospital and provided it the opportunity to respond and to provide supporting documentation to CMS.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.
  • On September 2, 2021, CMS reviewed the hospital’s website and determined that the non-compliance persisted.
  • On September 30, 2021, CMS issued a Request for Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to the hospital, stating that it was non-compliant with the aforementioned specific requirements of the Rule.
  • On November 15, 2021, in response to the Request for CAP, the hospital stated that patients could request specific price estimate quotes by calling or emailing Northside Hospital Atlanta, which CMS determined was insufficient in response to its Request for CAP and to comply with the Rule.
  • On December 20, 2021, CMS requested a revised CAP from the hospital.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.
  • On January 11, 2022, CMS conducted a technical assistance call with the hospital, during which the hospital confirmed that it was non-compliant with the Rule and explained that it had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files.
  • On January 24, 2022, CMS, again, requested a revised CAP from the hospital.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.

Based on the foregoing, CMS imposed an $883,180 CMP on Northside Hospital Atlanta, calculated as follows, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90:

  • $36,300
    • $300 per day of non-compliance times 121 days.
    • 121 days represents the number of calendar days during 2021 that Northside Hospital Atlanta was non-compliant with the Rule (September 2, 2021 through December 31, 2021), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(i).

 plus

  • $846,880
    • $10 per bed per day times 536 beds times 158 days.
    • 158 days represents the number of calendar days during 2022 that Northside Hospital Atlanta was non-compliant with the Rule (January 1, 2022 through the date of CMS’s CMP letter, June 7, 2022), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(ii).

Northside Hospital Atlanta has until 60 calendar days from the date of CMS’s CMP letter to pay.  Until the hospital notifies CMS that all non-compliance has been corrected, CMPs will continue to accrue.

Northside Hospital Cherokee

For similar reasons as Northside Hospital Atlanta, Northside Hospital Cherokee was fined $214,320.  CMS noted that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant since April 16, 2021, and notified the hospital by Warning Letter, dated May 18, 2021.  CMS reviewed the hospital’s website on September 9, 2021, and issued a Request for CAP on October 27, 2021—to which the hospital did not respond.  Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, CMS held a technical assistance call on January 11, 2022, during which Northside Hospital Cherokee notified CMS that it had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files.  CMS requested a Request for CAP on January 24, 2022—to which the hospital did not respond.

Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, Northside Hospital Cherokee was penalized $214,320, calculated as follows:

  • $34,200
    • $300 per day of non-compliance times 114 days.
    • 114 days represents the number of calendar days during 2021 that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant with the Rule (September 9, 2021 through December 31, 2021), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(i).

plus

  • $180,120
    • $10 per bed per day times 114 beds times 158 days.
    • 158 days represents the number of calendar days during 2022 that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant with the Rule (January 1, 2022 through the date of CMS’s CMP letter, June 7, 2022), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(ii).

Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, CMS noted that Northside Hospital Cherokee continues to be non-compliant and, thus, CMPs will continue to accrue.

Takeaways

These fines reflect CMS’s willingness to take material enforcement action where the Rule’s regulatory requirements are largely ignored and CMS’s subsequent efforts to obtain compliance are rejected.  Non-compliance carries heavy fines that are calculated, in part, by the number of days of non-compliance and by bed count.  Health care providers should take notice and ensure that they are compliant or, at least, making efforts towards compliance with the Rule’s requirements.  Critically, CMS will not accept a refusal to comply, as reflected in CMS’s responses to Northside Hospital Atlanta’s and Northside Hospital Cherokee’s refusals to submit CAPs.  As noted in CMS’s CMP letters to these providers, CMS is scanning websites and subsequently notifying providers that appear to be non-compliant with the Rule—which are ignored at the provider’s peril.

Article By Edward S. Kornreich and Matthew J. Westbrook of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

States Target Infant Formula Price Gouging

There has been a nationwide shortage of infant formula following a recall and temporary closure of a major infant formula manufacturing facility in February 2022. This facility supplied as much as 40% of the nation’s infant formula. In the wake of these events, state attorneys general are on the lookout for unlawful price gouging of infant formula. Sellers of infant formula should make sure that they do not inadvertently run afoul of state price gouging restrictions.

State price gouging laws prohibit price increases above certain thresholds during a period of emergency. Several state governments have recently issued declarations or proclamations that trigger price increase limitations for infant formula, including in California (CA Exec. Order N-10-22, 6/7/2022), Oregon (OR Exec. Procl., 5/13/2022), Colorado (CO Exec. Order D-2022-021, 5/25/2022), New Jersey (NJ Exec. Order No. 296, 5/17/2022), and Kentucky (KY Exec. Order 2022-321, 6/9/2022). Each of these states has a different price gouging restriction. For instance, infant formula sold in California cannot exceed the February 17, 2022 price by more than 10% except in certain limited circumstances. Other states may have a different price increase threshold or a different benchmark date. Multi-state sellers must take care to comply with the restrictions in each state.

Several states, such as Colorado and Nevada, enacted new price gouging laws in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-730; NRS § 598.09235. Enforcers have not had much experience enforcing these statutes, which may mean greater uncertainty for sellers in those states.

Most, but not all states have a price gouging law. In states that do not have a price gouging law, attorneys general will often seek to enforce their state’s unfair or deceptive trade practices act against reports of price gouging. For example, the attorney general of New Mexico, a state without a price gouging law, issued a press release on May 31, 2022 announcing that he is investigating complaints regarding infant formula price gouging. Similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, the infant formula shortage is triggering a variety of different price gouging restrictions in different states at the same time. Navigating the differences from state-to-state can be challenging, particularly in light of the new laws and amended laws that have been recently enacted. Sellers should review their normal pricing practices and make necessary changes to avoid inadvertently running afoul of the restrictions in a particular state.

Article By Leo Caseria and Thomas L. Tyson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more antitrust and trade regulation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

CFTC Wades Into Climate Regulation

On June 2, 2022, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) for “public comment on climate-related financial risk to better inform its understanding and oversight of climate-related financial risk as pertinent to the derivatives markets and underlying commodities markets.”  According to the RFI, the CFTC is contemplating “potential future actions including, but not limited to, issuing new or amended guidance, interpretations, policy statements, regulations, or other potential Commission action within its authority under the Commodity Exchange Act as well as its participation in any domestic or international fora.”

Specifically, the RFI issued by the CFTC is quite wide-ranging, and engages with numerous aspects of the CFTC’s authority, focusing on both systemic and narrow issues.  For example, the CFTC has, among other things, issued a broad request for comment on how “its existing regulatory framework and market oversight . . . may be affected by climate-related financial risk” and “how climate-related financial risk may affect any of its registered entities, registrants, or other market participants, and the soundness of the derivatives markets.”  It is hard to imagine a broader request by the CFTC–it is effectively asking for input on how “climate-related financial risk” may impact any portion of its regulatory purview.  Conversely, the CFTC has also posed very specific questions, including as to how the CFTC “could enhance the integrity of voluntary carbon markets and foster transparency, fairness, and liquidity in those markets,” and how it could “adapt its oversight of the derivatives markets, including any new or amended derivative products created to hedge-climate-related financial risk.”  In short, based upon the RFI, the CFTC could conceivably adopt a narrow or broad view of how it should adjust its regulations to account for climate-related financial risk.  Notably, however, the CFTC also asked if there were “ways in which updated disclosure requirements could aid market participants in better assessing climate-related risks,” which suggests that the CFTC may echo the SEC’s recent proposed rule for mandatory climate disclosures.

Most significantly, the fact that yet another financial regulatory agency is focused on “climate-related financial risk” suggests that the Biden Administration is willing to expend significant resources and energy in engaging in this type of regulation to advance its climate agenda.  When considered in tandem with the SEC’s recent proposed rules for mandatory climate disclosures and to combat greenwashing, it is apparent that there is a significant regulatory focus on climate issues and the financial markets.  This move by the CFTC also suggests that the Biden Administration will fully support the SEC’s proposed rules against the inevitable legal challenge.  (And, based upon the concurrences of the Republican CFTC commissioners to this RFI, it is likely that any climate-related regulation proposed by the CFTC will also be subject to legal challenge, likely on the grounds that such a regulation exceeded the CFTC’s authority.)  Most importantly, this move by the CFTC–that seeks to “understand how market participants use the derivative markets to hedge and speculate on various aspects of physical and transition [climate] risk”–demonstrates that the regulatory focus on climate and the financial markets will remain a top priority for the foreseeable future.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today unanimously voted to release a Request for Information (RFI) to seek public comment on climate-related financial risk to better inform its understanding and oversight of climate-related financial risk as pertinent to the derivatives markets and underlying commodities markets.

Article By Jacob H. Hupart of Mintz

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Biden Revisions to the NEPA Regulations Now in Effect

The Biden Administration is amending the federal regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to reverse certain changes made by the Trump Administration. The first set of amendments took effect last Friday on May 20, 2022.

As background, the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) first issued the NEPA implementing regulations in 1978. They remained unchanged for more than 40 years until the Trump Administration published its 2020 rule updating the regulations to facilitate “more efficient, effective, timely NEPA reviews.” Developers, construction companies, and other businesses generally supported these changes with the hope they would streamline a lengthy process that often significantly delays projects. However, environmentalists opposed the changes, fearing they would weaken important protections, including those aimed at reducing climate change impacts and protecting natural resources. Upon taking office, the Biden Administration immediately began an effort to reverse parts of the 2020 rule.

The Biden amendments will be issued in two phases. The “Phase One” rule was published on April 20, 2022, and is in effect as of May 20, 2022. The “Phase Two” rule, which is expected to include more comprehensive revisions, will be issued “over the coming months”.

 The Phase One rule reinstates the following three key provisions of the NEPA regulations:

1.  Statement of Purpose and Need, and Scope of Reasonable Alternatives (40 CFR 1502.13)

Under NEPA, an agency’s statement of purpose and need informs the range of alternative actions analyzed in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). The NEPA regulations historically required agencies to consider “reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” The 2020 rule updates, however, instructed agencies to limit the statement of purpose and need, and therefore the range of alternatives, to only those that are consistent with the applicant’s goals and the agency’s statutory authority.

The Phase One rule removes these limitations to re-establish federal agencies’ discretion to consider a variety of factors, including a range of reasonable alternatives that are not entirely consistent with the goals of the project applicant. Accordingly, federal agencies may again coordinate with communities and project proponents to evaluate alternatives that could minimize environmental and public health costs, but extend beyond the scope of the agency’s authority or do not serve the applicant’s goals.

2.  Agency Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1507.3)

The Phase One rule also removes language that could limit agencies’ standards and procedures for implementing NEPA rules that extend beyond CEQ regulatory requirements. This update reestablishes CEQ regulations as the “floor” for NEPA environmental review, and restores the agency’s discretion and flexibility to tailor NEPA procedures to align with specific agency and public needs. In contrast, the 2020 rule would have made the CEQ regulations a “ceiling” for NEPA requirements, effectively restricting agencies’ discretion to develop and implement procedures beyond requisite CEQ regulations.

3.  Scope of Effects (40 CFR 1508.1(g))

Finally, the Phase One rule restores the definition of “effects” that requires agencies to consider the historic categories of “reasonably foreseeable” direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The 2020 rule, in contrast, limited the scope of this analysis to effects with a “reasonably close causal relationship,” and included language indicating that agencies were only required to consider direct effects, had discretion to consider indirect effects, and should not consider cumulative effects in NEPA review. The Phase One rule change thus ensures that agencies’ NEPA documents will evaluate all relevant environmental impacts resulting from the agency decision.

Here, the Phase One rule reversal is particularly impactful in terms of an agency’s consideration of climate change, where cumulative effects tend to be substantially greater than the effects of the individual project. The Phase One update confirms CEQ’s view that climate change impacts are adequately considered in evaluating direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

*****

Except for reinstating these three key provisions, the Phase One rule does not affect other changes made by the 2020 rule.  The Biden Administration plans to introduce more comprehensive changes as part of the forthcoming Phase Two rule. These changes, which are anticipated to be more controversial and draw additional public attention, are expected to address environmental justice, public participation, and streamlining provisions, including the use of plain language, deadlines, page limits, and inter-agency coordination.

Article By Alexander L. Merritt and Kathryn C. Kafka of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.