Tag: EPA

EPA Proposes to Delay Effective Date of RMP Rule Amendments to 2019

EPA RMP Risk Management ProgramOn April 3, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule that would delay the effective date of the recent Risk Management Program (RMP) rule amendments to February 19, 2019. 82 Fed. Reg. 16146 (Apr. 3, 2019).

EPA published amendments to the 40 C.F.R. Part 68 RMP rule in the final days of the Obama administration. 82 Fed. Reg. 4594 (Jan. 13, 2017). Those amendments changed a number of RMP program elements, including compliance audits, the process hazard analysis (PHA) process, emergency response drills and preparedness activities, and information sharing with the public and local emergency responders. While the compliance date for most of the substantive RMP changes is four years after the effective date of the amendments, implementation of the changes would require action well in advance of the compliance date, and other requirements – most notably an expansion in scope of compliance audits – will affect sources after the amendments become effective.

The RMP rule amendments have been the subject of significant scrutiny and several regulatory developments since the final rule was published in the Federal Register. Petitions for reconsideration have been filed by two industry groups and a coalition of states, and in response, EPA has extended the effective date of the amendments twice: pushing the original effective date (March 14, 2017) back to March 21, 2017, and further to June 19, 2017. See 82 Fed. Reg. 13,968 (Mar. 16, 2017). In addition, both houses of Congress have filed resolutions seeking to repeal the RMP amendments under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

The proposed rule published on April 3 would delay the effective date of the RMP rule amendments again by nearly two years, to February 19, 2019. EPA explains in the proposal that the delay would allow the agency to evaluate the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration. EPA plans to issue, in the near future, a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the issues raised in the petitions and “any other matter” that EPA believes will benefit from additional public input.

EPA will take comment on the proposed delay in the effective date of the RMP rule amendments until May 19, 2017, giving it 30 days after the close of the comment period to take action prior to the amendments’ current effective date.

ARTICLE BY Whit Swift & Kevin D. Collins of Bracewell LLP

© 2017 Bracewell LLP

Trump Order Sets Up Rollback of Obama Energy and Climate Action

clean power planOn Tuesday March 28, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that takes the first step in rolling back executive actions that had been undertaken by the Obama Administration to address climate change and energy resource development.  The far-reaching order directly revokes or rescinds certain presidential and regulatory actions and directs the review and potential subsequent rescission or revision of other key programs and regulations administered by a variety of agencies.  However, it does not go as far as the Trump Administration might have in uprooting the underpinning of the federal government’s climate authority—the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 endangerment finding—or in walking away from the international process to address climate change as codified in the 2015 Paris Agreement.  Moreover, implementation of the measures outlined in the Executive Order will likely take significant additional time and process to fully implement and will almost certainly be challenged in the courts.

The Executive Order directs EPA to reconsider its climate-related energy sector regulations.

1.  Clean Power Plan

Most prominently, the Executive Order directs EPA to immediately review the Clean Power Plan, a regulation promulgated pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act that is intended to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.  The Executive Order directs EPA to “as appropriate” initiate rulemaking to suspend, revise or rescind the rule and related actions.  Following the issuance of the Executive Order, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a Federal Register notice announcing that EPA is reviewing and, “if appropriate, will initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the Clean Power Plan.”

Importantly, the Executive Order cannot and did not itself rescind the Clean Power Plan.  This must be done by EPA, through the same notice-and-comment rulemaking process used to promulgate the rule in the first place, which could take up to a year.  A final rule rescinding or revising the Clean Power Plan rule will almost certainly be challenged by states and environmental organizations.

The Clean Power Plan is currently subject to challenge in the D.C. Circuit and has been stayed by the Supreme Court.  The Executive Order directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to inform the D.C. Circuit of EPA’s plans and ask the court to put those challenges on hold while EPA takes action to rescind or revise the rule. Late Tuesday night, DOJ filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit hold its proceedings in abeyance.  This request likely will be challenged by environmental groups, states, and businesses that have supported the Clean Power Plan.

2.  Carbon Pollution Standards Rule

The Executive Order directs EPA to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise its Carbon Pollution Standards Rule, which sets emission limits for new, modified and reconstructed power plants.  Most significantly, this rule establishes a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants that is achievable only if such a plant installs carbon capture technology.  Following issuance of the Executive Order, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a Federal Register notice announcing EPA’s review and intent to suspend, revise, or rescind the Carbon Pollution Standards Rule as appropriate. As with the Clean Power Plan, any revision or repeal of the rule must be done through notice-and-comment rulemaking and will most likely be subject to legal challenge in the D.C. Circuit.

The Carbon Pollution Standards Rule is currently subject to challenge at the D.C. Circuit.  The Executive Order directs DOJ to notify the court of EPA’s plans and ask the court to put the challenges on hold while EPA takes action to reconsider the rule.  Late Tuesday night, DOJ filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit hold its proceedings in abeyance. As with the request related to the Clean Power Plan, this request likely will draw opposition from those entities that have supported the Carbon Pollution Standards Rule.

3.  Oil and Gas Sector Methane Emission Limits

The Executive Order directs EPA to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise a 2016 rule establishing new source performance standards limiting methane emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and gas sector.  That rule covers equipment, processes, and activities in the onshore production, gathering, transmission, and storage segments of the sector, and also expands upon a 2012 regulation directed at limiting emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Among other things, the rule requires performance of a rigorous protocol for leak detection and repair (LDAR) on a periodic basis.  The rule is currently being challenged in the D.C. Circuit, and the Executive Order directs DOJ to request the case be suspended pending reconsideration of the regulation.  The Order also directs EPA, “if appropriate” and “as soon as practicable,” to suspend, rescind, or revise “any rules and guidance issued pursuant to” its oil and gas methane rule.  The impact this directive will have on EPA’s voluntary Methane Challenge Program and Control Technique Guidelines for VOC emissions from the oil and gas sector—policies that were included in the Obama Administration’s Methane Strategy (which the Executive Order also rescinds, as discussed below)—is uncertain.  For more details about the oil and gas methane new source performance standards, see our VNF alert here.

The Executive Order directs the Department of the Interior to reconsider specific energy-related regulations and policies.

1.  Coal Leasing Program Review and Coal Leasing Moratorium

The Executive Order directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to amend or withdraw Secretarial Order 3338, which called for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to analyze potential leasing and management reforms to the federal coal leasing program.  Among other topics, the PEIS was to address the process, timing, and location of leasing; whether existing bonus bid, rent, and royalty payment policies provide a fair return to the United States; and the climate change and other impacts of coal development and use. The BLM published a scoping report in January 2017 summarizing the issues raised in meetings and public comments during the scoping period that began in March 2016, and the issues, including preliminary reform options, to be considered in the PEIS.

The Executive Order further directs DOI to suspend a moratorium that the Obama Administration BLM had placed on the leasing of new coal development on federal land while the agency reconsidered the coal leasing program. Unlike some of the other actions specifically identified in the Executive Order, the coal leasing moratorium and environmental review of the coal leasing program can be suspended without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Recognizing “the critical importance of the Federal coal leasing program to energy security, job creation, and proper conservation stewardship” and “finding that the public interest is not served by halting the Federal coal program for an extended time” and that a PEIS is not necessary to consider potential improvements to the program, on March 29, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3348 revoking Secretarial Order 3338, halting further activity on the PEIS, and reopening the coal leasing program. Simultaneously, DOI established a Royalty Policy Committee to regularly advise the Secretary on the fair market value of, and collection of revenues from, energy and mineral resource development on federal and Indian lands.

2.  Fracking Rule

The Executive Order directs DOI to review and, if appropriate and as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind BLM’s March 26, 2015 final rule entitled “Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands.”   The final rule imposed certain requirements related to well integrity, surface waste water management, and disclosure of details regarding the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids.  The final rule had been vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, but that decision is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  Wyoming v. Jewell, No. 15-8134 (10th Cir. filed June 24, 2016).  The Executive Order directs DOJ to inform the court of this order and seek “appropriate relief,” such as requesting that the case be suspended or otherwise stayed pending DOI’s reconsideration of the regulation.

3.  Waste Prevention Rule

The Executive Order directs DOI to review and, if appropriate, suspend, revise, or rescind BLM’s final rule on the prevention of waste of natural gas from venting and flaring.  On November 18, 2016, BLM issued a final rule, entitled “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation,” intended to reduce natural gas waste and air pollution resulting from onshore flaring, venting, and leaks by oil and gas production on federal and tribal lands, and to provide a beneficial return on public resources for states, tribes, and federal taxpayers.  The final rule, among other things, prohibits the venting of natural gas except in limited circumstances; requires operators to capture most of their gas after accounting for specified volumes of allowed flaring; and imposes rigorous LDAR protocols for limiting equipment leaks.   The final rule took effect January 17, 2017, after an unsuccessful attempt by several states and industry groups to enjoin implementation of the rule in federal court in Wyoming.   Western Energy Alliance et al. v. Jewell, No. 2:16-cv-00280 (D.Wyo. filed Nov. 15, 2016).  However, litigation concerning the final rule is ongoing, and the Executive Order directs DOJ to seek appropriate relief from the court, such as requesting the case be suspended pending reconsideration of the regulation, which the agency had already done.

Additionally, the House of Representatives has passed, but the Senate has not yet taken up, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would rescind this rule and limit BLM’s authority to issue a substantially similar regulation in the future.

4.  Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights Rules

The Executive Order calls for DOI to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise two final rules related to non-federal oil and gas rights on National Park Service (NPS)-managed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)-managed refuges.

The first rule, issued by NPS on November 4, 2016, and entitled “General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” updated the regulations (called the “9B regulations”) that govern private and state-owned oil and gas rights in the National Park System, which had not been updated since being promulgated more than 37 years ago.  The final rule, which took effect December 5, 2016, eliminated provisions that previously exempted more than 300 oil and gas operations and requires all operators, except those in Alaska, to comply with the 9B regulations.  The final rule also eliminated the cap on financial assurances, and strengthened enforcement authority by incorporating existing NPS penalty provisions.

The second rule, issued by FWS on November 14, 2016, and entitled “Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” updated the regulations governing the exercise of non-Federal mineral rights located outside of Alaska within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), which had not been updated since being promulgated more than 50 years ago.  The final rule, which took effect December 14, 2016, instituted a permitting process for new operations; requirements related to well-plugging and reclamation; operating standards; and provisions for fees, financial assurances, and penalties.

Resolutions of disapproval have been introduced in the House of Representatives that would rescind both of these rules under the Congressional Review Act.

The Executive Order directs federal agencies to review regulations that burden domestic energy development.

In addition to directing review of specifically-identified regulations and policies at EPA and DOI, the Executive Order directs all “executive departments and agencies” to review and report on “all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions” that “necessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of” domestic energy resources.  The Executive Order directs agencies to pay “particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources”; it does not specifically mention renewable energy.  “Executive department and agency” is not defined, and the application of this requirement to independent agencies is not clear.

Specifically, each agency is directed to submit a plan outlining how it will conduct its review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within 45 days.  Draft reports detailing the actions reviewed and including recommendations to address the burdens those actions impose on domestic energy production are due to OMB within 120 days, and final reports are due within 180 days.  Identified regulations that are rescinded can be used by the agency to comply with the President’s Regulatory Review Executive Order (for details on this order see our alert, here).

The Secretary of the Interior already has issued Secretarial Order 3349 commencing DOI’s review, requiring DOI bureaus and offices to submit reports within 21 days identifying regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions that burden energy development.  DOI has further committed to developing a department -wide plan within 35 days.

The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental Quality to rescind guidance incorporating climate change into environmental reviews.

The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to rescind its final guidance encouraging federal agencies to consider impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in environmental reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The final guidance, issued August 5, 2016, characterized climate change as a “fundamental environmental issue” and recommended that federal agencies consider the potential effects of a proposed action and related activities on climate change, using reasonably foreseeable, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions as a “proxy” for assessing impacts.  Although not binding or otherwise legally enforceable, federal agencies typically strive for compliance with NEPA guidance documents, and courts may afford greater weight to interpretations and guidance issued by CEQ.

This guidance can be revoked without having to go through notice or comment or other administrative procedures.  However, the Executive Order does not preclude federal agencies from continuing to consider the impacts of federal action on climate change in order to mitigate litigation risk when conducting environmental reviews.

The Executive Order rescinds the Interagency Social Cost of Carbon Guidance.

The social cost of carbon is a metric for quantifying the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and the benefits of policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama Administration convened an Interagency Working Group, led by OMB, to implement a uniform range of values for agencies to use when quantifying impacts of carbon dioxide emissions and emission reductions—the “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis” (SCC).  Similar guidance documents have been developed for two other greenhouse gases: methane, and nitrous oxide.  The SCC has largely been used to comply with executive orders requiring agencies to analyze impacts of regulations.  In some instances, agencies have used the SCC to set the stringency of regulatory actions in order to comply with statutory obligations.

The Executive Order disbands that Working Group and rescinds the uniform SCC guidance and related documents.  Based on court precedent, at least some agencies will likely still be required to consider the quantified benefits of greenhouse gas reduction in their rulemakings. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008); High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.Colo. 2014).

The Executive Order directs agencies to instead rely on long-standing cost-benefit analysis guidance outlined in OMB Circular A-4 when quantifying the costs of greenhouse gas emissions or benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions.  Whereas the cost ranges required under the interagency SCC guidance included the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on a global basis, OMB Circular A-4 directs agencies to primarily evaluate a rule’s costs and benefits only as they impact the United States.  This different direction, along with a number of other important technical changes, will likely result in agencies attributing much lower monetized benefits to actions that reduce greenhouse gases, if such quantification is performed at all.

The Executive Order revokes certain other energy- and climate change-related executive orders, presidential memoranda, and frameworks.

The Executive Order directly revokes the following four executive orders and presidential memoranda signed by President Obama related to energy and climate change.

First, the Presidential Memorandum on Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment directed agencies to more fully develop and implement requirements for the mitigation of adverse impacts from development and other activities on land, water, wildlife, and other ecological resources. Among other things, the memorandum established a mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, then compensate); set a “net benefit goal” or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for natural resources; emphasized large-scale or landscape-level planning and mitigation; and directed a number of agencies to take certain, specified actions to strengthen mitigation policies.  As noted above, following the Executive Order, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3349 which, in part, revokes Secretarial Order 3330, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior,” dated October 13, 2013, and directs a review of all actions taken pursuant to that order and the revoked Presidential Memorandum for possible reconsideration, modification, or rescission. This review will include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent Mitigation Policy, dated November 21, 2016, and Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy, dated December 27, 2016.

Second, the Presidential Memorandum on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards directed EPA to conduct a rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.  Rescinding this is consistent with the Executive Order’s direction to suspend, rescind or revise the Clean Power Plan and Carbon Pollution Standards Rule.  It also leaves open the possibility that EPA will only repeal, but not replace, these two rules.

Third, the Presidential Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security established a framework and directed agencies to take actions to ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies, and plans.

Fourth, Executive Order 13653 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change) directed federal agencies to take steps to prepare for climate change impacts and to support state and local resilience efforts, and established a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

The Executive Order also rescinds the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan, which identified addressing climate change as a priority and established a framework for doing so across federal agencies, and the Obama Administration’s Methane Strategy, a framework for addressing emissions of methane across a number of federal agency programs.  Rescinding these documents will have no independent legal effect and can be done with no further process.

The Executive Order directs agencies to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind, or revise regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions made in furtherance of these executive orders, presidential memoranda, and frameworks.  Such actions may require notice-and-comment rulemaking.  As noted above, DOI already has initiated its review, requiring that departments identify all such actions issued pursuant to them or currently under development within 14 days, identify actions that should be reconsidered, rescinded, or revised within 30 days, and submit to the Deputy Secretary draft revised or substitute actions within 90 days.

The Roads Not Taken

Finally, the Executive Order is notable for two actions that it does not take.

It does not direct reconsideration of, or even discuss, EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions cause air pollution which endangers public health and welfare (the “endangerment finding”).  This finding was made under the Clean Air Act in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (holding that greenhouse gases are an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act) and upheld by the D.C. Circuit, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012).  The endangerment finding serves as the necessary factual and legal predicate authorizing EPA to adopt greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act.  Doing so would have called into question not only EPA’s energy-related greenhouse gas regulations targeted for repeal or revision by the Executive Order, but also regulations under Clean Air Act section 202 limiting greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and trucks, and heavy duty vehicles and its requirement that large new and modified stationary sources install the best available control technology to limit greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

Second, the Executive Order does not direct the State Department to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement or otherwise mention that agreement.  However, this silence cannot be interpreted to mean that the United States will remain and continue to participate in the Paris Agreement in the manner set forth by the Obama Administration.  For example, if the Trump Administration reverses or significantly revises the policies targeted by the Executive Order, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the level of emission reductions that correspond to the U.S. pledge under the Paris Agreement.  This pledge—referred to as the U.S. “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC)—is a 26 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2025, and requires periodic updating of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions pledged under the NDC to assure the achievement of the Paris Agreement’s goals.  Accordingly, the Executive Order might presage a future action by the Trump Administration either to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or to submit a revised NDC with a significantly lower greenhouse gas reduction pledge.

The Executive Order calls for a large number of specific actions from a wide variety of agencies.  How agencies go about implementing those actions and the outcome of the inevitable legal challenges to those actions remains to be seen.

ARTICLE BY Kyle W. Danish, Stephen C. Fotis, Tyson C. Kade, Frances Bishop Morris, Jonathan D. Simon & Avi B. Zevin of Van Ness Feldman LLP

© 2017 Van Ness Feldman LLP

Trump Executive Order Seeks to Limit Scope of Clean Water Act

clean water act, EPA, environmental protection agencyThe executive order asks agencies to repeal or revise an Obama-era rule defining the scope of the Clean Water Act and recommends adoption of a narrower standard articulated by the late Justice Scalia.

On February 28, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order asking the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to repeal or revise a 2015 rule interpreting the term “waters of the United States,” which determines the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. The order further recommends that the agencies consider crafting a new definition based on the “continuous surface connection” test adopted by a plurality of the US Supreme Court in Rapanos v. United States, which would result in a significant contraction in the Clean Water Act’s scope from the Obama EPA’s 2015 rule.[1] The 2015 rule was met with extensive criticism by some stakeholders and gave rise to a flurry of litigation. A new rule issued in response to President Trump’s executive order is likely to do the same—resulting in continued uncertainty as to the proper scope of the Clean Water Act and possibly requiring further review by the Supreme Court to resolve the question.

Background

The scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has long been controversial. It is also an important issue for stakeholders such as farmers, developers, and energy companies that own or use properties that may contain a “water of the United States.” The scope of the act affects the application of a number of regulatory programs, including the section 402 point source discharge permit program, the section 404 dredge and fill permit program, and the section 311 oil spill prevention program.

The Clean Water Act applies to “navigable waters,” which are defined in the statute as “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.” EPA and the Army Corps, the agencies charged with administrating the Clean Water Act, have sought multiple times to define “waters of the United States” through rulemakings and regulatory guidance, and those regulatory efforts have been subject to numerous legal challenges. The US Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue three times, most recently in Rapanos v. United States.[2] Rapanos resulted in a fractured decision in which no interpretation received support from a majority of the court—Justice Antonin Scalia and three other justices articulated a test based on a “continuous surface connection,” while Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence relied on whether there was a “significant nexus” to another water of the United States.[3] Because Justice Kennedy’s analysis provided the narrowest grounds for reversal, the “significant nexus” test has been understood by many as the controlling test post-Rapanos for what constitutes a water of the United States.

In May 2015, EPA and the Army Corps issued a new rule seeking to better define the Clean Water Act’s scope.[4] The agencies maintained that the final rule only clarified and limited the reach of the act, but many stakeholder groups concluded that the 2015 rule significantly expanded the existing interpretation of waters of the United States. Of particular concern to stakeholders were categorical inclusions of “tributaries” and waters “adjacent” to other waters of the United States, as well as the rule’s broad definition of what constitutes a “significant nexus.” Numerous lawsuits challenging the rule were filed, which are currently consolidated in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Executive Order

On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order asking EPA and the Army Corps to review the 2015 rule and propose a new rule “rescinding or revising” it. The order also asks the agencies to consider defining waters of the United States “in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.” The order further directs the US attorney general to take appropriate measures regarding the ongoing litigation over the 2015 rule.

EPA and the Army Corps released a prepublication Federal Register notice the same day noting their intention to “review and rescind or revise” the 2015 rule pursuant to President Trump’s executive order. The agencies also acknowledged that they would consider adopting Justice Scalia’s test from Rapanos.

Implications

It likely will take years for the exact contours of the new regulation to be fleshed out by EPA and the Army Corps and for any ensuing litigation to be resolved. The process likely will start with the withdrawal of the Obama-era rule and the issuance of a new rule, including an explanation as to how the new rule fulfills the legislative intent of the Clean Water Act. The new rule will be subject to a public comment period.

If the agencies’ new rule is indeed based on Justice Scalia’s “continuous surface connection” test from Rapanos, it likely would entail a significant contraction in the scope of the Clean Water Act from existing practices and the Obama EPA’s 2015 rule. For example, a wetland next to a navigable river presumably would be covered by the act only if surface water from the wetland flowed into that river on a year-round basis, regardless of any subsurface flows. Under the 2015 rule, the same wetland could be covered under the act as a water “adjacent” to another water of the United States in the absence of a continuous surface connection. Many tributaries and ephemeral waters also likely no longer would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act if the “continuous surface connection” test is adopted. Such changes likely would be hailed by stakeholders that would have been prohibited from engaging in certain activities or obtaining permits under the 2015 rule, but criticized by environmental groups seeking to broadly protect aquatic resources.

Given the stakes and the contentious atmosphere regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act, any new rule is likely to be challenged in court. One issue that may be raised by challengers is whether a rule based on Justice Scalia’s “continuous surface connection” test is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act as interpreted by Supreme Court decisions, including Rapanos. Opponents of the rule could contend that a “continuous surface connection” standard is inconsistent with the Rapanos court’s view of the limits of the Clean Water Act because five justices rejected Scalia’s test as too restrictive, and most lower courts have treated Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the operative standard. Proponents of a new rule could counter that such a construction is nonetheless a permissible interpretation of the Clean Water Act (as evidenced by the plurality’s opinion in Rapanos) that is entitled to judicial deference.[5]  

Environmental groups or others opposed to a new rule could also challenge the merits of the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Such a challenge could rely in part on the new rule’s departure from the 2015 rule, in which the Obama administration cited extensive scientific findings in support of its interpretation. While agencies can change their position, they must provide a “more detailed justification” if they rely on factual findings contradicting previous ones,[6] potentially heightening the agencies’ burden to provide support for a new rule.

In the interim, jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act are likely to remain in a state of limbo. The 2015 rule has been stayed by the Sixth Circuit, technically leaving the rules and guidance pre-dating 2015 as the operative regulatory regime until the time that the stay is lifted or a new rule is promulgated. In light of the new administration’s expressed intent to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act, EPA and the Army Corps will be unlikely to assert jurisdiction over waters on the borderline of Clean Water Act jurisdiction until this legal limbo is resolved. The currently pending legal challenges also may be held in abeyance or remanded until the promulgation of a new rule, particularly given the executive order’s instruction to the US attorney general to take appropriate actions in pending litigation.

Ultimately, it likely will be years before the scope of the Clean Water Act is sorted out. And it may require a fourth trip to the Supreme Court for the justices to yet again wrestle with what are “waters of the United States.”

Additional Information

Additional information on the controversy that has surrounded efforts to define “waters of the United States” and the regulatory programs affected by the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act can be found in the Clean Water Handbook, Fourth Edition, authored by Duke McCall and available from Bernan Press.

ARTICLE BY Duke K. McCall III, Ella Foley Gannon & Douglas A. Hastings of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Copyright © 2017 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

[1] 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

[2] Id.

[3] See id. at 717-18.  

[4] 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054. 

[5] See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[6] See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).  

Asbestos Among First Ten Chemicals to be Reviewed Under the Amended TSCA

chemical safetyEPA announced on June 29, 2016, that asbestos and nine other chemicals will be reviewed for hazard and exposure risks under the new procedures of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the June 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Now that the ten chemicals have been chosen, EPA must produce a risk evaluation work plan for the chemicals by June 2017 and must complete the evaluations within three years. If unreasonable risks are found, EPA must take action to mitigate the unreasonable risks.

In addition to asbestos, the other nine chemicals are:

  • 1-Bromopropane, a solvent frequently used in adhesives
  • 1,4-Dioxane, a stabilizer in solvents and in certain consumer products
  • N-methylpyrrolidone, a solvent used in paint strippers, adhesives, and manufacturing
  • Carbon Tetrachloride, a carcinogen that was once used commonly as a solvent
  • Methylene Chloride, a paint stripper and degreaser
  • Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene, a common dry cleaning solvent
  • Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster, used as flame retardants
  • Pigment Violet 29, a dark reddish-purple dye

According to EPA, the chemicals were chosen because of their prevalence as environmental contaminants; their widespread use, especially in consumer products; and their perceived or known hazards.

EPA issued a ban and rule to phase out the use of asbestos in 1989, but the rule was overturned on the grounds that EPA failed to provide an adequate justification for the complete ban. Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991). Various other EPA rules have diminished the uses of asbestos over the years, as TSCA reformers were particularly focused on forcing EPA to make decisions about substances like asbestos. The new safety review focuses on risks to human health and the environment. The Lautenberg Act replaced the old cost-benefit standard with a new health-based safety standard. EPA is required to promulgate use standards if it finds that asbestos poses an unreasonable risk. EPA is expected to impose additional restrictions, including a possible ban, on the entry of asbestos into U.S. commerce. The other nine chemicals are subject to the same process.

ARTICLE BY Jane E. Montgomery of Schiff Hardin LLP
© 2016 Schiff Hardin LLP

EPA OIG Will Evaluate EPA’s Management of Resistance Issues Related to Herbicide Tolerant GE Crops

EPAOn March 25, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) sent a memorandum to Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), announcing that it plans to begin preliminary research to assess EPA’s management and oversight of resistance issues related to herbicide tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops.  OIG states that its review will include the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), as well as other applicable headquarters and regional offices.  OIG’s objectives are to determine:

  1. What processes and practices, including alternatives, EPA has provided to delay herbicide resistance;

  2. What steps EPA has taken to determine and validate the accurate risk to human health and the environment for approved pesticides to be used to combat herbicide resistant weeds; and

  3. Whether EPA independently collects and assesses data on, and mitigates actual occurrences of, herbicide resistance in the field.

OIG states that the anticipated benefit of the project “is a greater understanding of herbicide resistance[,] which will lead to an enhancement of EPA’s herbicide resistance management and oversight.”

Commentary

Pesticide resistance is not a new issue and is one that EPA has affirmatively addressed when granting registrations for new products, GE or not, for some time.  In fact, that newer chemistries often have a more niche mode of action to reduce potential toxicity concerns has led some observers to speculate that greater resistance is one potential trade-off for the development of less toxic materials.

This “investigation” may appear to some to be a response to concerns raised by critics of GE crops generally and to a recent EPA decision to approve Enlist Duo herbicide, a new formulation of 2,4,D- and glyphosate designed to address the problem of weed resistance to glyphosate-tolerant crops.  Glyphosate tolerant crops were first approved some years ago, and their use was so broadly and readily adopted that issues have arisen with regard to potential resistance to some weed species.  EPA is currently expected to approve another GE strain, Dicamba-tolerant crops, to control glyphosate tolerant weeds.

To critics of GE crops, using more herbicides to control problems caused by what they claim is overuse of another herbicide is evidence of a troubling “pesticide treadmill,” which they believe should not have been allowed to occur in the first place.  Rebutting this criticism, others assert that resistance is a problem for all pesticides, not only genetically modified ones, and that with sufficient controls, resistance can be delayed, if not avoided.  Registrants point out that it is very much in their self-interest to take steps to avoid resistance to their products — once that occurs, the market viability of the product is significantly reduced.

ARTICLE BY Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala & Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
©2016 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Ohio v. Sierra Club: The Integrity of the Clean Air Act

EPAYesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it will not grant Certiorari in Ohio v. Sierra Club, et al. In this case, the Sixth Circuit found an area must adopt required pollution-control measures before the EPA can designate it as having satisfied the law’s health-based pollution standards.

In 1997, the EPA created the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of fine particulate matter in the air.  When the EPA created these standards, regions were designated as having met, or not met the air quality standards.  In order to meet the standards, states were required to adopt “reasonable measures and technologies” to reduce the pollution in the problematic areas.  In 2011, the EPA deemed Ohio to have met the appropriate standards because the air quality had improved. Ohio, however, had never created a pollution regulatory plan as the Clean Air Act required. In response, the Sierra Club filed suit alleging the EPA acted illegally by designated the areas as having met air quality standards.

Creating a pollution regulatory plan is crucial, according to Sanjay Narayan, the managing attorney for the Sierra Club on the case.  Before 1990, the Clean Air Act had no requirement that states produce an implementation plan.  According to Narayan, the expectation was “we [the EPA] don’t care how you get there, we aren’t going to tell you how to get there, we’re just going to check in at the deadline and expect you to have made it. And what happened was that the vast majority of the states did not meet the deadline.”

Narayan describes the implementation plan as “a show your math” requirement. This has been very useful in helping states create lasting change in their air quality–by creating a regulatory framework that shows how they can reduce air pollution, the states are more likely to meet their deadline.  Narayan points out “It’s also useful for other areas to know what worked and what successful areas did.  Here’s what turned out to be cost effective, that kind of record is tremendously useful as we move forward on what was meant to be a nation-wide campaign for healthy air for the public.”

In  Ohio v. Sierra Club, there are a few details to consider.  Pollution decreased, and that’s the goal.  However, it might not be that simple.  In the years preceding Ohio’s drop in air pollution, the economy crashed.  Narayan draws comparisons to the Beijing Olympics, saying, “When people aren’t running their [industrial] plants for economic reasons, the air cleans up a little bit.  But it turns around quickly once you turn the plants back on.”  However, Ohio did meet the standard, and according to Narayan, to comply with the Clean Air Act they’d simply need to go back and show their work.  He says, “They did meet the standard, and they say they have all the controls they need in place.  There is a procedural step that Ohio hasn’t taken, and it shouldn’t be hard for Ohio to take it.”

The Sixth Circuit decision that currently stands requires Ohio to take those regulatory steps. In the current case, the Sixth Circuit agreed that the entire portion of the Clean Air Act must be followed, and that it wasn’t enough for Ohio to have simply met the standards.  Ohio has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Narayan says, “It’s about the integrity of the clean air act.”  These requirements are crucial in ensuring the air gets cleaned up in a timely manner.  Narayan says, Decades of experience has shown us that without these requirements, states miss deadlines, air pollution lasts for much longer than it should and the public really suffers.  The pollution sends kids to the hospital with asthma, it creates respiratory disease in the elderly-delay is a disaster for public health.”

Article By Eilene Spear & Nicole Cudiamat Minnis of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
Copyright ©2016 National Law Forum, LLC

EPA Proposal Acknowledges Areas With Dangerous Air Pollution, But Leaves Some Out and Has Failed to Step in When States Haven’t Protected Residents

EPATwo weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency published proposals to designate 12 areas of the country—including Alton and Marion, Illinois; Jefferson and Posey, Indiana; DeSoto Parish, Louisiana; Anne Arundel and Baltimore, Maryland; St. Clair, Michigan; Franklin, Missouri; Muskogee, Oklahoma; and Freestone, Rusk, and Titus, Texas—as “nonattainment” for the dangerous pollutant sulfur dioxide, or SO2.  While EPA won’t finalize the designations until July, what needs to happen next is for the agency to recognize that there are far more than 12 areas across the United States that are in need of having their air cleaned up.

But to explain the importance of all this, we need to back up a bit.  One of the most powerful tools under the Clean Air Act for protecting the air we breathe is something called an “ambient air quality standard.”  The way it works is this: EPA follows the science and determines the level for certain pollutants above which it’s unsafe for human health, and then issues standards for those pollutants.  For SO2 pollution, it’s 75 parts per billion.  EPA then determines what parts of the country have safe air quality, and what parts have air quality worse than the standard.  These latter areas are called “nonattainment,” and the Clean Air Act imposes strict requirements on states to fix their air quality problems, and directs EPA to step in and handle things if states don’t shoulder their responsibility.

Although EPA set the SO2 standard in 2010, since then, implementation has been stymied.  EPA hasn’t designated many areas, and even with the areas it has already designated as nonattainment, states have almost universally failed to develop the required plans to reduce SO2 pollution and EPA has failed to step in solve the problem expeditiously–including in Detroit, Michigan.  The consequence is that hundreds of thousands of residents are regularly breathing levels of pollution the agency knows causes severe public health impacts, particularly on children and the elderly.

SO2 is a nasty pollutant.  Exposure to even low concentrations for even short durations (as little as five minutes) can trigger asthma attacks and respiratory distress. In fact, studies show correlations between short-term exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly, and asthmatics.  In places like Detroit, where everybody—EPA, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, and the polluters themselves—know that the air is unsafe, the asthma rates are high, the public is suffering, but state and EPA action is both missing and overdue.

We know how to fix this problem. Almost all SO2 pollution comes from a tiny handful of sources: coal-fired power plants.

sierra20clubThat means that restoring clean air is as simple as modeling the pollution from the few hundred remaining coal plants in the country, and ensuring that they have emission limits in place that protect our air and our communities.

But why use modeling instead of air monitors to assess the safety of the air we breathe?  Two reasons: First, when almost all the pollution comes from just a few large sources, modeling is actually much faster, cheaper, and more accurate than setting up a monitoring network and waiting years for the data to come in.  EPA has carefully developed modeling software for this purpose, and has subjected it to more rigorous field testing than any other modeling tool it has ever created.

Second, the sad fact is that the nation’s air monitoring network for SO2 pollution is woefully inadequate.  During the Reagan administration, the U.S. had roughly 1,500 SO2 pollution monitors, which sounds like a lot, until you realize just how big a country the U.S. is—there are more than 3,000 counties in the U.S.  But since then, the number has dropped even further, to less than 450 (in a country spanning 3.8 million square miles!).  And none of them are where they need to be to keep an eye on peak concentrations of SO2 pollution: they are often miles away from large polluting sources or are in places like offshore islands, where the air they measure is a lot cleaner than the air we actually breathe.

This is what is so critical about EPA’s proposals: the new designations would be based on modeling.

Of course, not everybody is likely to be happy about this.  Plenty of states and industry submitted modeling to EPA (rather suspiciously, industry modeling rather universally shows impacts just below the limit), but oftentimes such analysis was skewed towards hiding the true impacts of the pollution.  In some cases, states submitted modeling not of what power plants actually emitted, but what the state wished they had emitted. In others, states or industry modelers used unapproved software add-ons that cripple the model and unsurprisingly yield results purporting air quality to be much better than it actually is.  This is a bit like calculating how much you’d have in your savings account if you’d been stashing away a lot more money than you actually had, and pretending the bank gave you a much better interest rate than it actually did.  It might be a fun exercise, but it has little to do with reality.

Nor did EPA go as far as it should.  While EPA in this round of proposed designations was looking at just 66 areas total, many more than the 12 it identified as having bad air should be considered as “nonattainment” for SO2 pollution.  Places like Gibson County in Indiana, and additional parts of Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio, and regions in Texas all have unsafe air quality because of coal plants, and EPA should designate them in nonattainment as well.

The first step in fixing a problem is recognizing that there is a problem, so EPA should not shy away from calling a spade a spade and finalizing nonattainment designations for these areas. And, where problems have already been identified–such as in Detroit–EPA should stop sitting on its hands and move expeditiously to protect the breathing public.

Article By Zack Fabish of Sierra Club

© Sierra Club 2016

2016 TSCA Chemical Data Reporting – Are You Prepared?

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule (40 C.F.R. Part 711) will require U.S. manufacturers and importers of certain chemical substances to report information on these substances to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by September 30, 2016. Industry should be well aware of and theoretically has ample time to meet this deadline, but the 2016 CDR is more complicated, more onerous, and requires more information than the 2012 CDR. Particularly given the significant penalties for CDR noncompliance (up to $2-5,000 per chemical per site), companies should devote significant time and effort to ensuring full compliance with this requirement.

Companies should be preparing now for the CDR submission period in 2016.

  • CDR reports must be submitted between June 1 and September 30, 2016.

  • Companies must report if they manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at least 25,000 pounds (lbs.) of a TSCA Inventory listed substance at any one U.S. site during any one of the following calendar years – 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015.

  • Certain regulated chemicals (e.g., chemicals subject to TSCA section 5 significant new use rules (SNUR)) are subject to a lower, 2,500 lbs./year, manufacture / import volume threshold for these calendar years. —

  • CDR reports must include detailed, chemical-specific and site-specific manufacture / import and processing / use information for calendar year 2015 (the “principal reporting year”), and production volume information for each calendar year from 2012 to 2015.

  • Information reported for the CDR can be claimed as TSCA confidential business information (CBI) only if “upfront” substantiation is provided.

EPA regulations governing CDR appear at 40 C.F.R. Part 711. For additional information, visit http://www.epa.gov/cdr.

The CDR Program

Since 1986, U.S. manufacturers and importers have been required to periodically submit under TSCA certain basic information on many of the now over 85,000 chemicals appearing on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (Inventory). Information submitted to EPA under this reporting requirement has been used as a tool for regularly updating the Agency and the public as to potential human and environmental exposure to substances in U.S. commerce.

In 2011, EPA overhauled this reporting requirement, which was originally known as the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) rule. The new “CDR” rule ushered in significant changes to reporting requirements beginning with the first CDR submission period, which ended in August 2012. For the 2012 CDR, about 1,600 U.S. companies reported activities for about 7,700 chemicals at about 4,800 sites. The second CDR reporting period will occur between June 1 and September 30, 2016 (to recur at 4-year intervals thereafter). Given the broader time period beginning in 2016 during which chemical production can trigger CDR reporting, in the future even more companies will likely be subject to and have to report on more chemicals.

Basic Thresholds and Reporting Requirement

For the 2016 submission period, companies must report for the CDR if, at one or more U.S. sites, they manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at least 25,000 pounds (lbs.) of a reportable chemical substance during any one of the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. The CDR reporting form is known as the “Form U.”

The Form U requires companies to provide a variety of information, including technical contact information, and a Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name and corresponding Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number (CASRN) (if available) for each reportable substance.

To the extent that it is known or reasonably ascertainable, the Form U requires reporting of the following information on manufacture / import activities for each reportable substance at each site:

  • Volume of the substance that is manufactured or imported;

  • Number of workers reasonably likely to be exposed to the substance at each site;

  • Physical form(s) of the substance as it leaves the submitter’s possession, along with the associated percent production volume; and

  • Maximum concentration of the substance as it leaves the submitter’s possession;

  • Volume of a substance used on site;

  • Volume of a substance that is directly exported and not domestically processed or used;

  • Whether an imported substance is physically at the reporting site; and

  • Whether a substance is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, or reused.

For the 2016 submission period, companies must also report production volume, by substance and site, for each of the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.

Processing and Use Information

As was the case under the 2012 CDR, companies are required under the 2016 CDR to report detailed “processing and use” information associated with downstream domestic customer facilities regardless of whether the facilities are controlled by the manufacturer or importer. For the 2012 submission period, information on processing and use activities was required only for substances manufactured or imported in quantities ≥ 100,000 lbs. in the principal reporting year. This higher threshold, however, has been eliminated such that, other than substances specifically exempted from this required as described and listed at section 711.6, this extensive processing and use information is now required for all CDR-reportable substances.

Required processing and use information includes the following:

  • Type of industrial processing or use operations at downstream sites;

  • Approximate number of sites and estimated number of industrial processing and use workers reasonably likely to be exposed to each substance for each combination of processing or use code and industrial function category;

  • Estimated percentages of the submitter’s production volume for each processing or use code and corresponding industrial function category;

  • Whether the products are intended for use by children; and

  • Maximum concentration of the reportable chemical substance in each commercial and consumer product category.

Processing and use information must be reported if it is “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” the manufacturer or importer. This is a considerably lower standard compared to the previous IUR requirement to report information that was “readily obtainable.”

Exemptions from CDR Reporting

Several categories of substances are exempt from CDR – certain polymers, microorganisms, and certain natural gas streams – so long as the specific substance is not subject to certain specified TSCA actions, such as proposed or final rules issued under section 4, 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of TSCA (e.g., test rules, significant new use rules), or to orders issued pursuant to section 5(e) or 5(f). Note that substances that are subject to an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) are similarly ineligible for these exemptions, even if the CDR reporter is not a signatory to the ECA. Also, otherwise polymeric substances resulting from hydrolysis, depolymerization, or chemical modification of polymers must be reported if the hydrolysis, depolymerization, or chemical modification occurs to such an extent that the resulting product is no longer totally polymeric in structure.

Exemptions also exist for substances that are produced or imported in small quantities for research and development, substances imported as part of an “article,” and substances manufactured or imported as an “impurity” or “non-isolated intermediate.” Other types of substances that are described at 40 C.F.R. § 720.30(h) are also excluded from CDR.

“Byproducts” are excluded from CDR if their only commercial purpose is to be burned as a fuel, disposed as a waste, or from which component chemical substances are extracted for a commercial purpose. Note, however, that any extracted component substances are potentially reportable for CDR.

Under section 711.6, certain petroleum process streams and other specifically listed “low interest” substances are exempt from the requirement to submit processing and use information. Manufacturers and importers of partially exempt substances, however, are still required to provide the traditional information required on the Form U if the general 25,000 / 2,500 lbs. production volume threshold is exceeded. EPA has established a process for revising these “partially exempt” substance lists.

Electronic Reporting

CDR reports must be submitted electronically using e-CDRweb, EPA’s free electronic reporting tool, to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).

CDR Violations, Penalties

EPA can assess substantial monetary penalties (up to $25,000 per chemical per site) for failure to comply with the CDR. Violations subject to penalties include seemingly minor CDR reporting violations such as late reporting, or reporting a slightly inaccurate manufacture or import volume. Companies would be well-advised to carefully review their production / import records and their prior CDR filing before preparing and submitting the 2016 report. If non-compliance occurs, companies may be able to rely on EPA’s “Audit Policy” (65 Fed. Reg. 19,618 (April 11, 2000)) to mitigate or eliminate penalties for past reporting errors or omissions, but companies should consult with legal counsel before examining past CDR compliance.

Confidentiality and Records Retention

To claim the chemical identity, site identity, or processing and use information as confidential business information (CBI), reporting companies must substantiate such CBI claims at the time of reporting. Submitters cannot claim information as CBI when it is identified as “not known to or reasonably ascertainable.” CDR records must be kept for 5 years.

Small Business Exemption

Certain small manufacturers are exempt from the CDR. A company may qualify for a small business exemption from reporting if it either: (1) produces less than 100,000 lbs. of the otherwise reportable substance and has total annual sales of less than $40 million (including those sales of the parent company); or (2) has annual sales of less than $4 million regardless of production / import volume.

This exemption does not apply for any substance that is the subject of a proposed or existing rule issued under sections 4, 5(b)(4), or 6; an order in effect under section 5(e); or relief that has been granted under a civil action under sections 5 or 7.

CDR Non-Compliance Issues

In our experience, many factors contribute to CDR non-compliance. These can include:

  • inaccurate manufacture and import volume tracking

  • failure to report / file all or some reportable substances

  • incorrect conclusions as to who is the “importer” of a substance

  • failure to report production volume to the required two significant figures of accuracy

  • nomenclature issues

  • “toll” manufacturing issues

  • misinterpretation of exemptions

  • failure to account for reportable “byproduct” and related stream manufacture

  • fractionation issues

As noted above, CDR violations are potentially eligible for EPA’s “Audit Policy,” and companies should strive to preserve their ability to use the Audit Policy to the extent possible and seek legal advice when necessary.

Article By Thomas C. Berger of Keller and Heckman LLP

© 2015 Keller and Heckman LLP

EPA Focuses on Methane Leaks as Climate Change Takes Center Stage

EPAIn the September 2015 edition of the US EPA’s Compliance Alert, EPA reported that it and state investigations had identified Clean Air Act compliance concerns regarding significant emissions from storage vessels, such as tanks or containers, at onshore oil and natural gas production facilities. This EPA alert is consistent with the administration’s attention on climate change and coincides with the papal visit, all of which set the stage for international attention on climate change in December at COP 21 in Paris.

The compliance concerns involve an evaluation of whether vapor control systems have been properly designed, sized and operated to control emissions consistent with the regulatory requirements. Storage vessels are regulated because they contain: 1) large quantities of volatile organic compound (VOC s) that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone- (2) hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as benzene, a known carcinogen- and (3) methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

This compliance alert comes while the oil and natural gas production industry is evaluating EPA’s proposed changes to the regulatory program for air emissions from the oil and gas industry (80 FR 56593 September 18, 2015) in an effort to further reduce methane emissions consistent with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. During his state of the union address on January 20, 2015, President Obama proclaimed “No challenge poses a greater threat to the future generations than climate change.”

Pope Francis’ historic visit to the U.S. last month provided an opportunity to pontificate his view that the climate change is a global problem disproportionately impacting the poor. He echoed President Obama in proclaiming that climate change “represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.” Encyclical Letter Laudato Si of the Holy Father Francis: On Care for Our Common Home.

World attention will focus on climate change in December in Paris when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change holds its 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) with the view that COP21 “will be a crucial conference, as it needs to achieve a new international agreement on the climate, applicable to all countries, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.” http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en.

As the oil and natural gas industry evaluates the regulatory changes proposed by EPA (comments are due on or before November 17, 2015), representatives of nations across the planet will be preparing to discuss views on an international climate agreement. It will be interesting to see if the parties can agree upon anything but given the fact that the Pope and the President of the leading world superpower agree that climate change poses one of the greatest threats to our planet, it is possible that COP21 will produce an agreement far more reaching than the Kyoto Protocol of COP3 in 1997.

Article By Stephen C Smith of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

BREAKING: EPA Water Rule Blocked Nationwide By Sixth Circuit

The Sixth Circuit today stayed the effect of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new “Clean Water Rule” nationwide, while the Court of Appeals considers whether it has original jurisdiction to hear challenges to the regulation or whether those challenges should proceed first in the federal district courts.  Among other reasons, the court said staying the Rule would remove uncertainty and confusion by restoring a uniform definition of “waters of the United States” nationwide.  Before today, the prior regulatory definition of waters of the United States was in effect in 13 states where the federal district court for North Dakota had enjoined the new Clean Water Rule; the new Rule’s definition applied in the rest of the country.

In granting the stay, the Sixth Circuit found that petitioners had a “substantial possibility” of succeeding on the merits of their challenge, for both substantive and procedural reasons.  Substantively, the court questioned whether the  Clean Water Rule’s provisions limiting jurisdiction over certain types of waters to those located within a specified distance from a navigable waterway are consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).  Procedurally, the court found the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were established was “facially suspect” because respondents have not shown those provisions were a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed regulations or that the public had “reasonably specific notice” the distance limitations were among the range of alternatives being considered.

As one member of the three-judge panel noted in dissent, the majority’s ruling is unusual in that the court enjoined implementation of the Clean Water Rule while it is still considering whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the challenges to the Rule.  In fact, petitioners have moved to dismiss their own petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction while also seeking a stay.  The majority’s statement that there is “no compelling showing that any of the petitioners will suffer immediate irreparable harm” in the absence of a stay is also in some tension with the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), where the Court held (in the context of a NEPA challenge) that the party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a likelihood—not just a possibility—of irreparable harm absent an injunction.

The court said that briefing on the jurisdictional question will be complete, and the question ready for decision, “in a matter of weeks.”

Article By Robert J. Uram, S. Keith Garner & James Rusk
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Copyright © 2015, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.