Category: Environmental Law

What Public Comments on the SEC’s Proposed Climate-Related Rules Reveal—and the Impact They May Have on the Proposed Rules

On March 21, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published for comment its much-anticipated proposed rules on climate disclosures, entitled “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.”[1]  The SEC invited public comments on these rules, and the response was overwhelming—nearly 15,000 comments were published on the SEC’s website over the course of three months, from individuals and organizations representing all aspects of modern American society.  Few, if any, of the SEC’s rule proposals have ever received such voluminous, significant, and diverse comments.  And the comments themselves range from brief statements to complex legal arguments either in support or in opposition, as well as detailed proposals for further changes to the proposed climate disclosures.  The comment period closed on June 17, 2022, and further action by the SEC to finalize the proposed rule is anticipated this fall.

This article provides a brief summary of the comments, and analyzes and summaries the key points the comments conveyed.

Statistical Analysis of Form and Individualized Submissions

Since the beginning of the public comment period, the SEC has received 14,645 comments on the proposed climate disclosure rules.[2]  To provide some context for how massive that figure is, the SEC has only received 144 comments on its proposed cybersecurity risk management rules, which were announced two weeks before the proposed climate disclosures and have also been the subject of extensive commentary in the press.  Yet despite the prominence of the SEC’s cybersecurity proposal, it has received fewer than 1% of the comments offered on the climate disclosure rule.

Of the 14,645 comments, approximately 12,304, or 84% of the total, are form letters.  This includes 10,589 comments that the SEC itself identified as form letters, and another 1,715 apparently individualized comments that were actually form letters.  However, even when removing these form letters from consideration, fully 2,341 individualized comment letters remain—a substantial number, and a significant percentage (16%) of the volume.[3]

The form letters are worth exploring in more detail.  Of the 12,304 comments, fully 10,861 (88%) broadly express support for the proposed climate disclosure rule, and only 1,443 (12%) are in opposition.  This disparity in the level of support for the two positions is best conveyed by the chart below.

Positions for and against the new SEC Disclosures

Notably, it has been possible to identify some, although not all, of the organizations that sponsored the form letter writing campaign.  In particular, form letters proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in support of the proposed climate disclosures were submitted 6886 times—more than 55% of the total volume of form letters.  Additionally, the form letters proposed by the Climate Action Campaign and the National Wildlife Federation in support of the SEC’s proposed disclosures were also quite voluminous among the submissions—1208 and 956 comment letters, respectively.  The most frequent form letters submitted in opposition to the proposed climate disclosure rules—e.g., those proposed by FreedomWorks (348 letters) and the Club for Growth (172 letters)—did not achieve nearly the same volume of submissions.

But the apparent overwhelming majority in favor of the proposed SEC climate disclosure rules, as conveyed by the form letters, is belied by the individualized submissions, which were far more closely divided.  Of the 2341 individualized comment letters submitted, approximately 53% (1238 comment letters) expressed support, about 43% (1015 comment letters) were opposed, and a handful—around 4% (88 comment letters)[4]—did not express a position.  The below chart demonstrates the levels of support expressed by the individualized submissions:

Individual submissions supporting, opposing, and neutral to the new SEC Disclosures

Besides the mere volume of submissions, however, the most noteworthy aspect of the individualized submissions are the substantive arguments—both factual and legal—that these comment letters articulate, whether in support or opposition to the proposed rules, as well as the identity of those making these submissions.

Arguments in Support of the Proposed SEC Climate Disclosure Rules

The organizations and individuals that chose to offer support for the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures represent a wide swathe of society.  Broadly speaking, these proposed climate disclosures attracted support from, among others: Democratic politicians, civil society organizations (such as environmental NGOs), individual corporations, professional services organizations, and academics. While the rationales offered by these different groups varied considerably, in part due to their varying perspectives (e.g., environmental NGOs were more concerned with the impact on the transition to a clean-energy environment, while corporations often focused on the consequences of particular aspects of the rules), the individualized comments in support of the proposed disclosures nonetheless shared some common features.

Specifically, there are a number of common arguments that are frequently featured among the 1239 individualized submissions in support of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures.  Six arguments appear in over 10% of the submissions.  In order of prevalence, these are:

  1. Environmental Protection (347 submissions, 28%): that the proposed rules will help protect the environment
  2. Investor Choice (280 submissions, 23%): that the proposed rules will enable investors to make more informed choices
  3. Investor Protection (263 submissions, 21%): that the proposed rules will enable investors to protect themselves and their investments from climate-related risk
  4. Standardization of Climate Disclosures (259 submissions, 21%): that the proposed rules will enable the standardization of climate disclosures, making data comparable
  5. Increased Transparency (171 submissions, 14%): that the proposed rules will increase transparency and hold companies accountable for their emissions
  6. Alignment with International and Foreign Regulatory Frameworks (169 submissions, 14%): that the proposed rules will bring the United States into alignment with both international frameworks and other countries (e.g., the EU)

No other argument appeared in more than 6% of the individualized submissions in support of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures.

Notably, the most common arguments in favor of the proposed climate disclosures share a common feature: these are all policy arguments, focusing on the benefits to investors and the broader economy from the adoption of the SEC’s proposed disclosures.  Only a single argument among the top ten most frequent arguments in support was a legal argument—namely that the proposed rules fall within the SEC’s statutory authority—and that argument appeared in only around 3% of the submissions (41 submissions).[5]  This focus on policy benefits among supporters of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures is unsurprising, as these public policy rationales were a key factor in encouraging the Biden Administration to pursue this regulatory agenda.  However, the reluctance to engage with critics of the proposed climate disclosures on a legal basis may signal the difficulties that the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures may encounter in future court challenges.

Arguments in Opposition to the Proposed SEC Climate Disclosure Rules

Those entities and individuals that submitted individualized comment letters opposing the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures also represent a broad range of American society, albeit with a somewhat different focus.  Generally, individualized letters in opposition to the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures tended to be submitted by, among others: Republican politicians, individual corporations, trade industry groups, and NGOs. (Unsurprisingly, the fossil fuel industry and extractive industries were particularly well-represented among the commenters.)  These individualized submissions—frequently lengthy and extensively analyzing the SEC’s regulatory practices and authority—shared a number of common themes.

In particular, there are a number of common arguments that featured frequently among the 1014 individualized submissions to the SEC in opposition to these proposed climate disclosures.  Three (3) arguments appeared in more than ten (10) percent of these submissions:

  1. Ultra vires (322 submissions, 32% ): that the SEC lacks the ability to issue these disclosures as the proposed rule is beyond the scope of the SEC’s legal authority
  2. Compliance Costs (218 submissions, 21% ): that compliance with the proposed rule will impose unreasonable and extensive costs on businesses
  3. Climate Science Skepticism (123 submissions, 12%): that the science concerning climate change is unsettled and therefore the proposed rule is inappropriate

Although no other common argument appeared in more than 7% of the individualized letters in opposition, it should still be noted that there were a large number of letters that objected to the increased burdens placed on particular types of businesses, whether farmers (53 submissions, 5%), fossil fuel companies (49 submissions, 5%), or small businesses (36 submissions, 4%).

Overall, it is striking that around a third of the comments submitted in opposition stated that the SEC had acted beyond its authority (ultra vires) in proposing this new rule.  While this critique is hardly novel—it has been a frequent refrain of the Republican SEC Commissioners ever since this topic was first broached—the prevalence of this argument among the individualized comments suggests that both the public and sophisticated market actors perceive this issue as a key vulnerability in the SEC’s proposal, and that this legal argument will likely be emphasized in the inevitable legal challenge to this SEC rule.  And, based on recent decisions by the Supreme Court, it is altogether likely that this line of attack may find a sympathetic audience in the courts.

Potential Changes to the SEC Climate Disclosure Rules Resulting from Public Comments

Despite the differences between the advocates and opponents of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures, both sides submitted proposals to the SEC to change or adjust the proposed rules.  Although there was often substantial disagreement about the content of these proposed changes, there were also significant areas of convergence.

Some of the changes to the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures frequently submitted by supporters of the rule included:

  1. ISSB: that the SEC should further align its proposal with the ISSB and help create a global standard (76 comments);
  2. Extended Phase-In Period: to extend the phase-in period for these new disclosure requirements (72 comments);
  3. Alignment with International and Foreign Standards: that the SEC should further align its proposal with international and foreign standards, such as the EU or TCFD (66 comments);
  4. Enhance Scope 3 GHG Emissions: to eliminate exemptions so that all companies must disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions (55 comments);
  5. Principles-Based Approach to Materiality: to adopt a principles-based approach to materiality rather than bright-line rules (53) comments;
  6. Remove Scope 3 GHG Emissions: to remove the requirement that Scope 3 GHG emissions be disclosed (36 comments);
  7. Furnish, Not File: that the disclosures be provided in a document that is “furnished” to the SEC, rather than filed (which impacts potential liability) (26 comments).

Although certain proposed changes by proponents of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule are undeniably expected (e.g., removing exemptions for disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions), there are others that seem somewhat surprising on initial review (e.g., extending the phase-in period or removing Scope 3 GHG emissions entirely).  This can most easily be explained by the fact that supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule include corporations and other business interests, which will resist certain burdensome regulations even if generally offering support for the overall thrust of the proposal.  There are also academics and others who continue to express skepticism concerning the utility of disclosing Scope 3 emissions, or even whether it can be adequately measured.

It should be emphasized that these changes proffered by supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule, many of which are designed to render the proposed rule less onerous, may indicate that the support for the proposed rule—or at least the most stringent aspects of it—is relatively weak (or at least among the corporate interests nominally aligned with the SEC).

The most frequent changes suggested by opponents of the rule included:

  1. Remove Scope 3 GHG Emissions: to remove the requirement that Scope 3 GHG emissions be disclosed (69 comments);
  2. Principles-Based Approach to Materiality: to adopt a principles-based approach to materiality rather than bright-line rules (35 comments);
  3. Extended Phase-In Period: to extend the phase-in period for these new disclosure requirements (25 comments);
  4. Furnish, Not File: that the disclosures be provided in a document that is “furnished” to the SEC, rather than filed (which impacts potential liability) (18 comments).

These proposed changes (and others) advanced by opponents of the SEC’s proposed rule are generally designed to make the rules less stringent and also to reduce costs and potential legal liability.

As can be seen by comparing the above lists, there are certain areas where suggested changes to the proposed rule converged.  In particular, there are issues where both opponents of the SEC’s proposed rule and some of its supporters would try to render it less intrusive or impactful, particularly with respect to the elimination of the requirement to report Scope 3 GHG emissions and to extend the phase-in period further.  (Although, as noted, this apparent convergence between opponents and supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule may be due to divergent interests among the supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule with respect to its implementation.)

But, regardless of the specific content of the particular proposed changes, what is undoubtedly significant is that these proposed changes have highlighted the aspects of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule that are likely most sensitive to regulated corporations.  Such an insight reveals not only the areas where active lobbying is most likely to take place, but also previews probable priorities for corporate compliance departments.  In effect, focusing on the aspects of the proposed rule where changes were proposed is a means to identify the key issues from the perspective of the regulated entities and the public at large.

Conclusion

The level of engagement with the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures, as demonstrated by the number and detail of the public comments offered, is extraordinary. This degree of attention indicates the significant impact that is expect to result from the ultimate promulgation of these rules (or a revised version thereof).

Of course, the key question here is what changes, if any, are likely to be made to the SEC’s proposed rule based upon the public comments submitted to the SEC.  In this context, it is noteworthy that a handful of key issues have been identified by both proponents and opponents of the proposed disclosures as especially ripe for potential revision.  As noted above, these include, among others, the length of the phase-in period and the disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions.  If any changes are to be made to the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule, it is likely that such changes will be related to these issues.

However, given the relative lack of forward momentum with respect to other aspects of the Biden Administration’s climate agenda, there may well be political pressure not to weaken or otherwise rollback the SEC’s proposed rule, as this is one of the few areas where significant—and publicly-recognized—progress has been made with regulations designed to address the issue of climate change.  Further, the Biden Administration’s SEC has certainly recognized the inevitability of a legal challenge to these proposed climate disclosures, and, since no degree of alteration would suffice to preempt such a lawsuit, the SEC may conclude that it is better to seek to implement all aspects of the proposed regulation for the political benefit that can be achieved in the short term, since the substantive aspects of the proposed disclosure may not ultimately survive judicial scrutiny.  The SEC may also prefer to send a strong signal to the market by maintaining its original proposed rule.  Recognizing these pressures, it seems unlikely that the public comments submitted to the SEC will have a significant impact on the final rule promulgated in the coming months—and improbable that the SEC will make the proposed disclosures less robust.

FOO​TNOTES

[1] These proposed rules are discussed more fully in our prior publication:  https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2451/2022-03-30-brief-summary-secs-proposed-climate-related-rules

[2] Although the total number of comments, when including both form letters and individualized letters, is 14,739, there are 94 comment letters on the SEC website that are duplicates, and have thus been removed from the calculation.

[3] For comparison, the proposed SEC rule on disclosing compensation ratios drew about 300,000 form letters and around 1500 individualized comment letters.  In this case, the individualized comment letters represented only about 0.5% of the total volume.  https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-07-13/s70713.shtml

[4] The eighty-eight comment letters that did not adopt an express position on the proposed climate disclosure rules instead conveyed a number of different points, including proposing narrow changes to the proposed rule without taking a stance on the rule as a whole, or offering further context for the SEC’s actions (e.g., comparing the SEC to other regulators, whether domestic or international).  This category also includes a number of early comments that simply requested that the SEC extend the deadline for submitting comments.

[5] There are public comments in support of the proposed rule that focus on the legal issues.  In particular, the submission of Prof. John Coates of Harvard Law School, a former SEC official, is devoted exclusively to defending the legal authority of the SEC to issue the proposed climate disclosure rule. https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20130026-296547.pdf

Article By Jacob H. Hupart, Megan N. Gates, William F. Weld, Douglas P. Baumstein, Jennifer B. Rubin, and Courtney O. Taylor of Mintz. Luke Haubenstock also contributed to this article.

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

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

PFAS GenX Health Advisories Challenged In Court

On June 15, 2022, the EPA issued Health Advisories (HAs) for five specific PFAS, including GenX PFAS chemicals. The PFAS GenX health advisories set levels at 10ppt for this chemical group. On July 13, 2022, The Chemours Co. filed a petition in the Third Circuit challenging the validity of the EPA’s GenX HA. The company alleges that the EPA acted outside of its bounds of authority, as well as arbitrarily and capriciously, among other arguments. Other industries that will be impacted by upcoming EPA PFAS regulations will closely follow the lawsuit as it makes its way through court, as it may provide predictive indicators of arguments that will unfold as the EPA’s PFAS regulations increase.

PFAS GenX Health Advisories

In October 2021, the EPA released its PFAS Roadmap, which stated explicit goals and deadlines for over twenty action items specific to PFAS. As part of the Roadmap, the EPA pledged to re-assess the existing Health Advisories (HAs) for PFOA and PFOS, as well as establish HAs for PFBS and GenX chemicals. In June 2022, the EPA fulfilled its promise on all fronts when it set HAs for PFOA (interim), PFOS (interim), PFBS (final) and GenX (final). While not enforceable levels for PFAS in drinking water, the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories are nevertheless incredibly significant for a variety of reasons, including influence on future federal and state drinking water limits, as well as potential impacts on future PFAS litigation.

The levels set by the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories were as follows:

PFOA .004 ppt
PFOS .02 ppt
GenX 10 ppt
PFBS 2,000 ppt

Chemours Challenge To GenX Health Advisories

Chemours is challenging the EPA’s PFAS GenX Health Advisories primarily on the grounds that the HAs are “arbitrary and capricious.” The company alleges that the HAs are arbitrary and capricious because (1) they incorporated toxicity assumptions that deviate from the EPA’s own standard methods; and (2) “EPA incorporated grossly incorrect and overstated exposure assumptions―in essence, EPA used the wrong chemical when making its exposure assumptions, thereby resulting in a significantly less tolerant health advisory for [GenX] than is warranted by the data. In addition, Chemours argues that the EPA failed to go through the necessary public comment period before issuing its final GenX HA, and that in creating the GenX HA, the EPA exceeded its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Conclusion

Now more than ever, the EPA is clearly on a path to regulate PFAS contamination in the country’s water, land and air. The EPA has also for the first time publicly stated when they expect such regulations to be enacted. These regulations will require states to act, as well (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Beyond drinking water, though, the EPA PFAS Roadmap shows the EPA’s desire to take regulatory action well beyond just drinking water, and companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

EPA’s Spring 2022 Unified Agenda Includes Proposed and Final TSCA and TRI Rules

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) spring 2022 Unified Agenda, published on June 21, 2022, includes the following rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Proposed Rule Stage

  • Tiered Data Reporting to Inform Prioritization, Risk Evaluation, and Risk Management under TSCA (2070-AK62): EPA is developing a rulemaking under TSCA Sections 8(a) and (d) to establish reporting requirements based upon a chemical’s status in the Risk Evaluation/Risk Management (RE/RM) Lifecycle and update the reporting requirements under the 40 C.F.R. Part 711 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulation. Specifically, EPA is seeking occupational, environmental, and consumer exposure information. EPA is developing this rule to obtain information about potential hazards and exposure pathways related to certain chemicals, particularly occupational, environmental, and consumer exposure information. According to the Unified Agenda item, EPA needs this information to inform prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management of chemical substances under TSCA Section 6. EPA intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in May 2023 and a final rule in September 2024. More information on EPA’s July 27, 2021, webinar on development of the proposed rule is available in our July 29, 2021, memorandum.
  • Revisions to the TSCA Fees Rule (2070-AK64): In January 2021, EPA proposed updates and adjustments to the 2018 TSCA fees rule. EPA proposed modifications to the TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years (FY) 2022, 2023, and 2024 and explained the methodology by which the proposed TSCA fees were determined. EPA proposed to add three new fee categories: A Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture or Import Notice, a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import, and an additional fee associated with test orders. In addition, EPA proposed exemptions for entities subject to certain fee-triggering activities, including an exemption for research and development (R&D) activities; an exemption for entities manufacturing less than 2,500 pounds of a chemical subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee; an exemption for manufacturers of chemical substances produced as a non-isolated intermediate; and exemptions for manufacturers of a chemical substance subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation if the chemical substance is imported in an article, produced as a byproduct, or produced or imported as an impurity. EPA updated its cost estimates for administering TSCA, relevant information management activities, and individual fee calculation methodologies. EPA proposed a volume-based fee allocation for EPA-initiated risk evaluation fees in any scenario where a consortium is not formed and is proposing to require export-only manufacturers to pay fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations. EPA also proposed various changes to the timing of certain activities required throughout the fee payment process. In light of public comments, EPA states that it has decided to issue a supplemental NPRM in October 2022 and seek additional public comment on changes to the January 2021 proposal. More information on the proposed rule is available in our December 30, 2020, memorandum.
  • New Chemicals Procedural Regulations to Reflect the 2016 Amendments to TSCA (2070-AK65): On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) was signed into law, amending TSCA and impacting how EPA reviews and makes determinations on new chemical notices under TSCA Section 5. EPA states that as a result of these increased responsibilities, it has become more challenging to complete reviews within 90 days. This rulemaking seeks to revise the new chemicals procedural regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 720 to improve the efficiency of EPA’s review process and to align its processes and procedures with the new statutory requirements. This rulemaking seeks to increase the quality of information initially submitted in new chemicals notices and improve EPA’s processes to reduce unnecessary rework in the risk assessment and, ultimately, the length of time that new chemicals are under review. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in February 2023.
  • Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims under TSCA (2070-AK68): EPA is considering proposing new and amended rules concerning the assertion and maintenance of claims of CBI under TSCA. Amendments to TSCA in 2016 included several new provisions concerning the assertion and EPA review and treatment of confidentiality claims. EPA states that it is considering procedures for submitting and supporting such claims in TSCA submissions, including substantiation requirements, exemptions, electronic reporting enhancements, and maintenance or withdrawal of confidentiality claims. EPA is also considering whether the proposed rule should also elaborate on EPA’s procedures for reviewing and communicating with TSCA submitters about confidentiality claims. EPA expects the proposed rule to include new provisions, as well as revisions to existing rules on asserting confidentiality claims to conform to the 2016 amendments to TSCA. As reported in our May 17 and May 18, 2022, memoranda, EPA issued a proposed rule on May 12, 2022. EPA intends to issue a final rule in May 2023.
  • Chemical-Specific Rulemakings under TSCA Section 6(a): TSCA Section 6 requires EPA to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator has determined are presented by a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Following risk evaluations for the following chemicals carried out under the authority of TSCA Section 6, EPA initiated rulemakings to address unreasonable risks of injury to health identified in the final risk evaluations:
    • Methylene Chloride (2070-AK70): EPA’s risk evaluation for methylene chloride, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in February 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for methylene chloride will be available in a forthcoming memorandum;
    • 1-Bromopropane (2070-AK73): EPA’s risk evaluation for 1-bromopropane, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in May 2023 and a final rule in August 2024;
    • Carbon Tetrachloride (2070-AK82): EPA’s risk evaluation, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in April 2023 and a final rule in August 2024;
    • Trichloroethylene (TCE) (2070-AK83): EPA’s risk evaluation for TCE, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0500, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0737. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in March 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for TCE will be available in a forthcoming memorandum;
    • Perchloroethylene (PCE) (2070-AK84): EPA’s risk evaluation for PCE, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0502, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0732. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in February 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for PCE will be available in a forthcoming memorandum;
    • N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) (2070-AK85): EPA’s risk evaluation for NMP, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in May 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for NMP will be available in a forthcoming memorandum; and
    • Asbestos (Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos) (2070-AK86): EPA’s risk evaluation for chrysotile asbestos, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0501, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0736. More information on EPA’s proposed rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos is available in our April 7, 2022, memorandum. EPA intends to publish a final rule in November 2023.
  • Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA (2070-AK90): As required under TSCA Section 6(b)(4), EPA published a final rule on July 20, 2017, that established a process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, under the conditions of use. This process incorporates the science requirements of the amended statute, including best available science and weight of the scientific evidence. The final rule established the steps of a risk evaluation process, including: scope, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and risk determination. EPA states that it is now considering revisions to that final rule and will solicit public comment through an NPRM. EPA intends to publish the NPRM in September 2022. More information on EPA’s 2017 rule is available in our June 26, 2017, memorandum.
  • Asbestos; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under TSCA (2070-AK99): This rulemaking, under the authority of TSCA Section 8(a), would require certain persons that manufactured (including imported) or processed asbestos and asbestos-containing articles (including as an impurity) to report certain exposure-related information, including quantities of asbestos and asbestos-containing articles manufactured (including imported) or processed, types of asbestos used, and employee data. Reported information would be used by EPA and other federal agencies in considering the regulation of asbestos. EPA notes that this rulemaking is the result of a settlement agreement stemming from litigation pursuant to TSCA Section 21. See Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization v. EPA, No. 19-CV-00871; State of California et al. v. EPA, No. 19-CV-03807. More information on EPA’s proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements is available in our May 6, 2022, memorandum. EPA intends to publish a final rule in November 2022.
  • Other Chemical Substances Undergoing TSCA Section 6 Risk Evaluation; Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL05): EPA is developing TSCA Section 5(a)(2) SNURs on conditions of use identified as not currently ongoing in the final scope documents for the high-priority substances undergoing TSCA Section 6 risk evaluations. EPA states that it will use the SNURs to require notice to EPA before chemical substances and mixtures are used in new ways that might create concerns. Persons subject to a SNUR who intend to manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substance for the significant new use must notify EPA at least 90 days prior to initiating activities via a significant new use notice (SNUN). EPA intends to publish an NPRM in December 2022 and a final rule in May 2024.
  • The Unified Agenda includes the following chemical-specific SNURs for certain non-ongoing uses:
    • Phthalates; SNUR for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL06): EPA intends to publish an NPRM in November 2022 and a final rule in May 2024;
    • Flame Retardants; SNUR for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL07): EPA intends to publish an NPRM in December 2022 and a final rule in November 2023; and
    • Certain Solvents; SNUR for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL08): EPA intends to publish an NPRM in December 2022 and a final rule in May 2024.
  • Inactive Inventory Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) SNUR (2070-AL10): EPA is developing a SNUR under TSCA Section 5(a)(2) for certain uses of Inactive Inventory PFAS. Persons subject to the Inactive Inventory PFAS SNUR would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture or processing for any use that EPA has determined is a significant new use. The required notifications would initiate EPA’s evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Manufacture and processing for the significant new use would be unable to commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022 and a final rule in June 2023.
  • TRI; Response to Petition to Add Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) to the TRI List of Toxic Chemicals (2025-AA17): According to EPA, this action arises from a petition received by EPA to add DINP to the list of toxic chemicals reportable under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In response to the petition, EPA initiated a rulemaking on September 5, 2000, proposing to add DINP to the TRI list. On June 14, 2005, EPA issued a notice of data availability seeking comments on EPA’s revised hazard assessment for DINP in further support of EPA’s proposal to add DINP to the TRI list. EPA states that the addition of DINP to the TRI list would make it subject to all the reporting requirements under the Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Rule. EPA intends to publish a supplemental NPRM in July 2022 and a final rule in May 2023;
  • Changes to Reporting Requirements for PFAS; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (2070-AK97): EPA is developing a proposal to add PFAS subject to reporting under EPCRA Section 313 and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to the list of Lower Thresholds for Chemicals of Special Concern (Chemicals of Special Concern). EPA states that the addition of the PFAS to the Chemicals of Special Concern list will eliminate the use of the de minimis exemption, eliminate the option to use Form A, and limit the use of range reporting. In addition, EPA is proposing to eliminate the use of the de minimis exemption under the Supplier Notification Requirements for facilities that manufacture or process all chemicals included on the Chemicals of Special Concern list. According to EPA, Chemicals of Special Concern may be found in products below de minimis levels; this is especially true for PFAS that are used at low concentrations in many products. Because of the widespread use of PFAS and their (or their degradants) persistence in the environment, however, even concentrations below de minimis levels can contribute significantly to environmental loading. The elimination of the de minimis exemption for supplier notification purposes will help facilities to identify potential sources of PFAS and other Chemicals of Special Concern. EPA believes that the elimination of the de minimis exemption under the Supplier Notification Requirements for PFAS and other Chemicals of Special Concern will result in a more complete picture of the releases and waste management quantities for these chemicals. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022 and a final rule in November 2023.
  • Addition of Certain PFAS to the TRI (2070-AL03): EPA is developing a rulemaking to add certain PFAS to the list of chemicals reportable under EPCRA Section 313. EPA states that the addition of these PFAS is in direct response to a statutory mandate under Section 7321(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA). Under Section 7321(d), EPA was required to evaluate whether certain specific PFAS meet the EPCRA Section 313 listing criteria by December 2021 and is required to add any PFAS that EPA determines meet the listing criteria by December 2023. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in February 2023 and a final rule in November 2023.
  • Community Right-to-Know; Adopting 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for TRI Reporting (2070-AL09): EPA is developing a proposed rule to incorporate the revised 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for TRI reporting purposes. According to EPA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updates the NAICS codes every five years. OMB approved the 2022 NAICS codes on December 21, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 72277), with an effective date of January 1, 2022. EPA currently uses 2017 NAICS codes, and with this proposed rule would implement the 2022 codes for TRI Reporting Year 2022. Facilities reporting to the TRI would be required to use 2022 NAICS codes on reports that are due to EPA by July 1, 2023. This rule also proposed to update the C.F.R. to clarify the scope of facilities required to report to the TRI. According to EPA, the actual data required by a TRI form would not change as a result of this rulemaking, nor would the rule affect the universe of TRI reporting facilities that are required to submit reports to EPA under EPCRA Section 313. EPA intended to publish an NPRM in June 2022 and a final rule in November 2022.

Final Rule Stage

  • Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances; Updates to the Hazard Communication Program and Regulatory Framework; Minor Amendments to Reporting Requirements for Premanufacture Notices (PMN) (2070-AJ94): In 2016, EPA proposed changes to the existing regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under TSCA (40 C.F.R. Part 721, specifically “Protection in the Workplace” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.63) and “Hazard Communication Program” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.72)) to align these regulations with revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communications Standard (HCS) (29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1200), which are proposed to be cross referenced, and with changes to the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) respirator certification requirements pertaining to respiratory protection of workers from exposure to chemicals. EPA also proposed changes to the significant new uses of chemical substance regulations based on issues that have been identified by EPA and issues raised by public commenters for SNURs previously proposed and issued under these regulations. Additionally, EPA proposed a minor change to reporting requirements for PMNs and other TSCA Section 5 notices. EPA states that it expects these changes to have minimal impacts on the costs and burdens of complying, while updating the significant new use reporting requirements to assist in addressing any potential effects to human health and the environment. EPA is reviewing the comments received and is planning to issue a final rule. EPA intends to issue a final rule in October 2022. More information on the proposed rule is available in our July 29, 2016, memorandum.
  • Reporting and Recordkeeping for PFAS under TSCA Section 8(a)(7) (2070-AK67): EPA published a proposed rule on June 28, 2021, addressing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PFAS under TSCA Section 8(a)(7). In accordance with obligations under TSCA Section 8(a), as amended by NDAA Section 7351, persons that manufacture (including import) or have manufactured these chemical substances in any year since January 1, 2011, would be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In addition to fulfilling statutory obligations under TSCA, EPA states that it expects that the proposed rule would enable it to characterize better the sources and quantities of manufactured PFAS in the United States. EPA intends to publish a final rule in December 2022. More information on EPA’s proposed rule is available in our June 11, 2021, memorandum.
  • TRI; Response to Petition from the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) to Add 25 Chemicals (2070-AK26): The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) submitted a petition under EPCRA Section 313(e)(1) to add 25 chemicals to the EPCRA Section 313 list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under the TRI. Three of the 25 chemicals were added to the EPCRA Section 313 list through actions unrelated to the petition. EPA states that it evaluated the remaining 22 chemicals to determine if they met the listing criteria of EPCRA Section 313(d)(2). EPA proposed the addition of 12 of the 22 chemicals that were determined to meet the EPCRA Section 313(d)(2) criteria and for which reports were expected to be filed. EPA is reviewing the comments received and is planning to issue a final rule. EPA intends to issue a final rule in November 2022.
  • Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting (2070-AK42): In 2021, EPA proposed to codify the definition of “parent company” for purposes of reporting to the TRI. Although the existing regulation requires facilities reporting to the TRI to identify their parent company in annual reporting forms, no codified definition of this data element exists. Among the facilities reporting to the TRI are those with complicated corporate ownership structures. As such, effort is required each year by reporting facilities and EPA to clarify how the parent company data element should be represented on the form. According to EPA, a codified definition of parent company would allow EPA to address various corporate ownership scenarios explicitly and reduce the reporting burden caused by regulatory uncertainty. EPA states that the proposed rule would clarify existing regulations to reporting facilities and add a foreign parent company data element, if applicable, while improving EPA’s data quality. EPA is reviewing the comments received and is determining next steps. EPA intends to publish a final rule in October 2022.
  • NDAA Mandated Addition of Certain PFAS to the TRI for Reporting Year 2022 (2070-AL04): According to EPA, NDAA Section 7321 provides a framework for PFAS to be added automatically to the TRI list on January 1 of the year following certain EPA actions. In December 2021, EPA announced the statutory addition of the PFAS chemicals covered by the NDAA to the list of chemical substances subject to reporting for the TRI. This regulatory action amends the EPCRA regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 372 to reflect this statutory addition. EPA intended to publish a final rule in June 2022.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

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

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Colorado PFAS Act Likely Just the Beginning of New PFAS Chemical Regulation

Key Takeaways

  • How does the recent increase in state regulation of PFAS chemicals in consumer products impact your business?
  • Potential federal regulations of PFAS chemicals
  • Need for implementation of quality control practices
  • How best to identify and correct improper use of PFAS chemicals in consumer products

Introduction

Colorado has become the most recent state to regulate the use of PFAS chemicals in consumer products. It is important that manufacturers and retailers become aware of these restrictions now to avoid future compliance issues since the state regulations of PFAS chemical use are not the same state to state. Further the compliance issues imposed by state regulations will be compounded if the federal government fulfills its promise to regulate PFAS chemicals. Multiple federal agencies have indicated that such federal regulations may be forthcoming in the near future.

Definition of PFAS

Per- and polyfluoroalyyl substances (PFASs, CnF2n+1–R) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS and GenX chemicals.1 These chemicals are widely used, long lasting chemicals that contain components that break down very slowly over time. PFAS chemicals are used to make fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These can include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and many other products.2 Because of their widespread use and persistence in the environment, many PFAS are found in the blood stream of people and animals all over the world and are present at low levels in a variety of food products and in the environment.

Colorado Joins a Growing List of States to Implement PFAS Regulations for Consumer Products

Colorado recently adopted into law the Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Chemcials Consumer Protection Act (the “Colorado PFAS Act”)3, which regulates the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyflupralkyl substances (“PFAS chemicals”) in certain consumer products. The Colorado General Assembly concluded that such regulation is necessary upon the determination that “PFAS chemicals pose[] a significant threat to the environment of the state and the health of its residents.”4 Accordingly, by its terms, the Colorado PFAS Act was implemented into law in order “to create a regulatory scheme that phases out the sale or distribution of certain products and product categories in the state that contain intentionally added PFAS chemicals.”5 In furtherance of this goal, the Colorado PFAS Act will phase out the sell and distribution of certain consumer products that contain “intentionally added PFAS chemicals” from January 1, 2024 through January 1, 2027.6

These phase out regulations within the Colorado PFAS Act are consistent with a national trend of states regulating the sale and distribution of consumer products containing PFAS chemicals. For example, the Colorado PFAS Act establishes that Colorado is now one of at least 8 states that will regulate the sale and distribution of “food packaging” that contains intentionally added PFAS chemicals.

Beyond the differing timeline in the above chart, it is important to note these regulations are not synonymous since the term “food packaging” is defined differently by each regulating state.

Ignorance Is No Defense

The Colorado PFAS Act also does not allow ignorance on the contents of a commercial product as prohibiting the enforcement of its regulations. It is true that the Colorado PFAS Act prohibits the sell and distribution of certain products that contain “intentionally added PFAS chemicals.”7 However, the Colorado PFAS Act defines “intentionally added PFAS chemicals” as “PFAS chemicals that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that have a functional or technical effect on the product.”8 Here the “intent” element necessary to trigger the regulations of the Colorado PFAS Act is the intent to add any chemistry which includes any listed PFAS chemicals. The Colorado PFAS Act defines “product” to “include” any product components.”9 Thus, a “manufacturer” of consumer goods must understand all additive materials to its products through each stage of the supply chain.

Likely Federal regulation by the end of the year (2022)10

The EPA is expected to propose a regulation for groups of PFAS in drinking water in the Fall of 2022 before the Agency’s statutory deadline in March 2023. A final rule is anticipated in Fall 2023 after considering public comments on the proposal. In a new health advisory, EPA reduced the acceptable levels for two PFAS (perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)) in drinking water from 70 parts per trillion down to just 0.004 parts per trillion for PFOA and 0.02 parts per trillion for PFOS.11 Issuing a health advisory is generally considered to be a preliminary step in the process of setting maximum contaminant levels.12 Some states have set their own enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS. Vermont, Michigan, and New Jersey have all set limits ranging from 8 to 20 parts per trillion for both chemicals.13 The issuance of the health advisory by the EPA will have States reevaluating their own regulations to conform with the standards set by the Agency.14

By Winter 2022 the EPA plans to leverage federally-issued NPDES permits to reduce PFAS discharges and will propose monitoring requirements at facilities where PFAS are expected or suspected to be present in wastewater and storm water discharges, using its recently published analytical method 1633, which covers 40 unique PFAS. EPA will issue new guidance recommending that state-issued permits that do not already include monitoring requirements for PFAS use the method 1633 at facilities where PFAS is expected or suspected to be present in wastewater and storm water discharges. In addition, the new guidance will recommend the full suite of permitting approaches that EPA will use in federally-issued permits. The EPA expects to publish a multi-laboratory validation method to detect up to 40 specific PFAS compounds in eight environmental matrices with the Department of Defense online by Fall 2022.

Discussion of Proposed RCRA and CERCLA changes

a. Proposed RCRA Changes15

In recent months, EPA has set the stage for greater regulation and firm federal standards PFAS chemicals that could significantly impact cleanup requirements. In October of 2021, the EPA responded to a petition from Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico to tackle PFAS contamination under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA outlined plans to initiate rulemaking process for two new actions under the hazardous waste law. The first rulemaking effort will initiate the process to propose adding four PFAS chemicals as RCRA Hazardous Constituents under Appendix VIII, by evaluating the existing data for these chemicals and establishing a record to support a proposed rule. The four PFAS chemicals EPA will evaluate are: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), and GenX. Adding these chemicals as RCRA hazardous Constituents would ensure they are subject to corrective action requirements and would be a necessary building block for future work to regulate PFAS as a listed hazardous waste. The second rulemaking effort will clarify in EPA regulations that the RCRA Corrective Action Program has the authority to require investigation and cleanup for wastes that meet the statutory definition of hazardous waste, as defined under RCRA section 1004(5). This modification would clarify that emerging contaminants such as PFAS can be cleaned up though the RCRA corrective action process.

b. Proposed CERCLA Changes16

In June 2021, EPA restarted the process to designate PFOA and PFOS as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances. A proposed rule was expected in the Spring of 2022, no such rule has been proposed. According the EPA’s “PFAS Strategic Roadmap” a final rule is expected in the Summer of 2023 and EPA is currently developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances. Such designations would require facilities across the country to report on PFOA and PFOS releases that meet or exceed the reportable quantity assigned to these substances. The hazardous substance designations would also enhance the ability of federal, Tribal, state, and local authorities to obtain information regarding the location and extent of releases. EPA or other agencies could also seek cost recovery or contributions for costs incurred for the cleanup.

The designation PFOA and PFOS as a hazardous substance under CERCLA could substantially impact existing and new cleanup sites. Site owners and responsible parties who release PFOA or PFAS, and possibly other PFAS chemicals will be obligated to report releases, quantify the location and amounts released to stakeholders, and may be liable for partial or total cleanup. Regulatory changes may also delay cleanup and add significant analytical costs for companies who need to evaluate PFAS in various media prior to releases of any kind to waste streams. The designation of PFAS as hazardous substances has not yet been ratified at a federal level. However, several states (e.g., Washington DOE) have enacted Public Health Goals for surface and drinking waters and cleanup standards – several that incorporate federal hazardous substances lists, ensuring that the impending PFAS regulations will extend beyond federally designated cleanup sites.

The Importance of Following the Discussion Leading up to New TSCA Regulations17

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) helps the EPA compile data and information on releases of certain chemicals and supports decisions by companies, regulatory agencies, and the public. The EPA intends to implement a rulemaking in 2022 to categorize the PFAS on the TRI list as “Chemicals of Special Concern” and remove the de minimis eligibility from supplier notification requirements for all “Chemicals of Special Concern.” It is expected for the EPA to continue to update and add to the list of PFAS subject to the TRI. EPA’s proposed rule would require all manufacturers (including importers) of PFAS in any year since 2011 to report information related to chemical identity, categories of use, volumes manufactured and processed, byproducts, environmental and health effects, worker exposure, and disposal. There is still opportunity for public comments as the rule is not set to finalize until January of 2023.

Industries Should Take Protective Measures

Both the implementation of the Colorado PFAS Act and the recent actions of the EPA establish that the time for manufacturers and retailers to act is now. Specifically, manufacturers and retailers should implement quality control practices directed towards identifying—and where necessary altering—the chemical contents of their consumer products.

To implement such quality control practices, manufacturers and retailers should review their wastewater handling processes and insurance policies for periods of past PFAS chemicals use. These previous processes and insurance policies likely identify the specific components of PFAS chemicals that were deemed to violate state waste water regulations, as well as the internal changes implemented to eliminate the use of such chemicals. Similar practices can likely be implemented in the sale and distribution of consumer products that include PFAS chemicals. Manufacturers and retailers should implement practices now to limit exposure and costs once regulation of PFAS consumer products become both effective and more prevalent. If you have any questions regarding PFAS regulations, please contact the authors of this article.

ENDNOTES

1 Zhanyun Wang et al., A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)?, 51 ENV’L SCI. TECH. 2508.

2 CTR. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/PFAS_FactSheet.html (last visited June 24, 2022).

3 C.R.S.A. § 25-15-601 et seq.

4 C.R.S.A. § 25-15-602(1)(a).

5 C.R.S.A. § 25-15-602(2).

6 C.R.S.A. §§ 25-15-604(1), (3)-(4).

7 C.R.S.A. § 25-15-604(1), (3), and (5).

8 C.R.S.A. § 25-15-603(12)(a).

9 C.R.S.A. § 25-15-603(20)(b).

10 All information gathered in this section coms from: ENV’L PROT. AGENCY https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap_final-508.pdf (last visited June 24, 2022).

11 Juan Carlos Rodriguez, 3 Takeaways from EPA’s Guidance on PFAS in Drinking Water, Law360 (June 22, 2022, 8:48 PM EDT).

12Id.

13Id.

14Id.

15 Information on RCRA changes comes from: EPA Press Release, responding to New Mexico Governor’s petition to tackle PFAS contamination under RCRA (Oct. 26, 2021).

16 All information gathered in this section coms from: EPA, PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitments to Action 2021-2024 (Oct. 2021).

17 Information comes from: EPA (last visited June 24, 2022).

 

Article By Daniella D. Landers, Michael J. Sullivan, and Brendan H. White of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. Audrey Capra, Summer Associate, also contributed to this alert.

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

Even in the 9th Circuit, merely conveying contaminated groundwater isn’t “transportation” of a “solid waste”

Just before the July 4th holiday, two Judges on a Ninth Circuit panel reversed their earlier conclusion that conveying contaminated groundwater can give rise to RCRA liability for the “transportation” of a “solid waste”.  The panel now agrees that the City of Vacaville’s mere conveyance of drinking water contaminated by someone else is not something Congress intended to criminalize (or make subject to civil penalties) in RCRA.

The two Judges reiterated their view that the contaminated groundwater does fall within RCRA’s definition of “solid waste”.

This case first caught my attention in January after the panel’s first bite at this apple. (See https://insights.mintz.com/post/102hg8l/overturning-the-9th-circuit-vaca…).

I guess it is progress that the panel has corrected one of its two mistakes.  But to suggest that conveying groundwater containing parts per billion of anything is the transportation of a solid waste is completely unfaithful to the language of RCRA as the panel has now recognized with respect to the definition of “transportation” but not the definition of “solid waste”.

It bears repeating that the water the City is providing to the residents of Vacaville reportedly meets all applicable federal and state standards, including those established under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and the State of California has stringent standards of its own.  It is those laws, and not the federal law having to do with the transportation and disposal of solid waste, that should apply.

As I wrote in January, if we think those laws, or any of our other federal and state environmental laws, need improving, we should lobby our elected officials to improve them.  But stoking the fears of an already cynical citizenry that our federal, state and local governments aren’t doing their job isn’t worth whatever citizen suit plaintiffs might stand to gain from misusing the laws that we do have.

“RCRA’s context makes clear that mere conveyance of hazardous waste cannot constitute ‘transportation’ under the endangerment provision,” writes Judge Patrick J. Bumatay in the new ruling, joined by District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, sitting on the 9th Circuit by designation.

Article By Jeffrey R. Porter 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.

Key Takeaways from U.S. Supreme Court Decision in West Virginia v. EPA

On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. __, 2022 WL 2347278 (June 30, 2022), a case involving the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) and the Trump Administration’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. Applying the “major questions” doctrine, the Court held that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when promulgating the CPP. This decision has implications for the Biden Administration’s planned re-work and reissuance of the CPP and other options for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electric power and other sectors. It also carries implications outside the environmental realm, providing litigants a powerful new administrative law precedent to challenge agency rules.

Key Takeaways and Issues to Watch

1. “Major questions” doctrine. The most significant takeaway of the opinion is the Court’s elaboration and application of the “major questions” doctrine, as a limit on federal agency regulatory authority. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that in “certain extraordinary cases” where an agency asserts broad authority of “economic and political significance,” courts should look for a clear statement of congressional authorization before green-lighting the action. Based on the “major questions” doctrine, the Court rejected the CPP’s partial reliance on generation shifting (from coal-fired power plants to natural gas or renewable electricity generation) as a component of the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) for reducing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. The Court held that Clean Air Act Section 111(d), 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), a rarely-used statutory provision, was not sufficient to support a rulemaking that “restructure[ed] the Nation’s overall mix of electricity generation….” Because the Court determined this result would carry consequences of economic and political significance, the Court found the rule triggered the “major questions” doctrine. The Court reiterated that although Section 111(d) authorizes EPA to establish emission guidelines for existing major sources of air pollution based on BSER, the Agency could not do so using such transformative measures.

This decision represents the Supreme Court’s first formal assertion of the “major questions” doctrine, applicable when an agency claims broad authority based on new interpretations of older statutes or statutes in which the grant of authority is not explicitly stated. Although this was not the first Supreme Court case employing this logic, this was the first case where the Court formally used the phrase “major questions” doctrine. Other cases the Court pointed to include a 2000 case rejecting the asserted authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products, like cigarettes, as drug-delivery “devices,” and more recent cases from this Supreme Court term concerning the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to apply long-extant legal authorities in the context of COVID-19.

2. Chevron deference doctrine. The Court does not strike down Chevron as some parties had predicted or sought. That doctrine—requiring courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of an ambiguous statute it is charged with administering—survives for now. Indeed, the majority opinion did not even cite Chevron deference.

3. Biden EPA. This decision immediately affects the scope of the Biden Administration’s approach to regulating power sector GHG emissions. The Administration has said that it wants to start these rules from a clean slate.

a. On-site measures. As noted in the decision, the Administration may be more likely to consider on-site measures as the BSER. Such options might include partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) or natural gas co-firing. The Obama EPA had declined to use those options for existing sources because it believed generation shifting was a less expensive way for industry to comply. But EPA had used partial carbon capture to set the limits for new sources, so it may review that issue now. Since the CPP’s issuance, the IRS Section 45Q tax credit for CCS and commercialization of CCS technologies that did not exist when the CPP was drafted may also affect the EPA’s approach now.

b. Generation shifting off the table. At least for setting the stringency of BSER, EPA will not be able to rely on generation-shifting measures. Advances in CCS technologies and the Section 45Q tax credit may also affect how EPA defines BSER for coal-fired plants in particular.

c. Seeking GHG reductions as “co-benefits” of other power sector rules. The Biden EPA may also consider other power plant emission rules under other CAA programs to achieve GHG reductions as “co-benefits.” Programs for regional haze, interstate air pollution, and hazardous air pollutants regulate other emissions, but often have the effect of reducing GHGs as well.

d. Other climate authorities will likely get a more intense look. The decision may also likely cause the Biden EPA to consider other, more clearly established GHG sources or authorities to seek additional GHG emissions reductions (e.g., mobile sources, HFCs).

4. Congressional action remains key. The Court’s decision underscores that certain rulemakings will need to rely on clear legislative authority to withstand legal challenges. Notably, the decision does not divest Congress from the ability to delegate “major questions” like this to federal agencies; it only requires that such delegations be clearly stated. Congress retains authority to act in any number of ways on climate change—including with economy-wide emissions programs (as it considered during the first Obama term), or by drafting clearer EPA authority—but with a narrowly-divided House and Senate, these actions seem unlikely.

5. Power sector practical effects. The practical outcome for the power sector is limited. That sector, in many respects, has already decarbonized at a rate faster than provided for by the CPP, largely for economic reasons.

6. States. This decision will likely encourage some states to use their authority to regulate GHG emissions, given the narrowed scope of EPA’s authority.

7. Future challenges. Expect litigants to rely heavily on the West Virginia decision in other rulemaking challenges going forward, whenever agencies act under existing authorities in a way that, in the Chief Justice’s words, “raises an eyebrow.” This may include not only EPA regulatory efforts to address modern environmental challenges, but actions of other federal agencies such as efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to regulate internet service providers to impose net neutrality, or efforts by the Securities and Exchange Commission to establish ESG disclosure requirements. Litigants will have a powerful tool to challenge those rules if they can persuasively phrase the question in “major question” terms.

Article By Eric L. Christensen, Brook J. Detterman, David M. Friedland, Jennifer J. Leech, and Zachary B. Pilchen of Beveridge & Diamond PC

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

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC

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.

Green Innovation Being Fast Tracked by USPTO

The USPTO now fast tracks applications involving greenhouse gas reduction technologies. The new Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program targets impact on the climate by accelerating examination of patent applications for innovations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Qualifying applications may be advanced out of turn for examination (granted special status) until a first action on the merits—typically the first substantive examination—is complete. Advantageously, qualifying applications do not incur the petition to make special fee and is not required to satisfy the other requirements of the accelerated examination program.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) accept petitions to make special under this program until June 5, 2023, or the date when 1,000 applications have been granted special status under this program, whichever occurs earlier. “This program aligns with and supports Executive Order 14008, dated January 27, 2021, and supports the USPTO’s efforts to secure an equitable economic future, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate the effects of climate change.” The new program takes steps toward working to incentivize and expedite clean energy technologies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change.

To qualify for the Program:

  • Patent Applications must contain one or more claims to a product or process that mitigates climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and be: (a) a non-continuing original utility non-provisional application; and (b) an original utility non-provisional application that claims the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of only one prior application that is either a non-provisional application or an international application designating the United States. Note: Claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of one or more prior provisional applications or claiming a right of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) to one or more foreign applications will not affect eligibility for this pilot program.

  • The application or national stage entry and the requisite petition form must be electronically filed by use of the Patent Center of the USPTO, and the specification, claims, and abstract must be submitted in DOCX format.

  • Applicants must file the petition to make special with the application or entry into the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 or within 30 days of the filing date or entry date of the application. The fee for the petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(d) has been waived for this program.

  • Applicants must use Form PTO/SB/457—which contains the petition and requisite certifications—to request participation in this program.

  • Petition filing limitations: Applicants may not file a petition to participate in this pilot program if the inventor or any joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four other non-provisional applications in which a petition to make special under this program has been filed.

In a recent blog post announcing the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal said, “It’s essential to protect these transformative energy innovations with intellectual property (IP). Innovation is a primary driver of the U.S. economy, and IP is the bridge between an idea and bringing that innovation to market. Industries based on innovation and the protection of intellectual property generate almost $8 trillion ($7.8 trillion) in GDP, and account for 44% of all U.S. jobs. Workers in patent-intensive industries earn almost $1,900 per week. That is 97% higher than the average weekly wage of workers in non-IP intensive industries.”

Vidal also said, “Startup companies that have a patent are far more likely to be successful in raising funding than those that have not secured intellectual property protection. When used as collateral, a patent increases venture capital funding by 76% over three years, and increases funding from an initial public offering by 128%, the approval of a startup’s first patent application increases its employee growth by 36% over the next five years, and after five years, a new company with a patent increase its sales by a cumulative 80% more than companies that do not have a patent.”

Moving forward to protect essential green energy transition technology can be helpful for future corporate and strategic goals. This new Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program opens the door to accelerating potential patent protection for many of these developing technological fields.

Article By Jeffrey S. Whittle,  Karthika Perumal, Ph.D., Christopher Kent, Kevin J. Davis, Ph.D., and Samuel A. Savanich of  Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

For more environmental, energy, and resources news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP 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.