Tag: EPA

Supreme Court Broadens the Types of Federal Agency Actions That Can Be Challenged in Court

Recently an article by Jerry Stouck and David B. Weinstein of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding the  Types of Federal Agency Actions that can be Challenged in Court was published in The National Law Review:

GT Law

The Supreme Court recently held, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, that “compliance orders” unilaterally issued by the EPA, which the agency contended were informal directives not subject to judicial review, qualify as “final” agency actions that can be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The decision is not limited to EPA compliance orders, although many hundreds of those are issued each year, which now will be subject to judicial review. Sackett applies more broadly because it expands the types of federal agency actions that will be deemed final, and thus subject to judicial challenge, under the APA. Any agency action that has coercive legal effect, and no established avenue for agency-level review, is now potentially challengeable under Sackett.

The APA authorizes federal courts to enjoin or set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. In any such case, however, it is a jurisdictional requirement that the agency action be “final.” The rationale is that courts should not interfere with ongoing agency decision-making. Such finality is relatively clear when a party challenges a regulation or an order resulting from formal agency adjudications (e.g., license or permit proceedings). But most actions of federal regulatory agencies fall into neither category, and instead constitute what practitioners call “informal” agency adjudication. EPA compliance orders are in that category; they do not result from any well-defined agency proceeding. So are many other types of agency directives and procedures.

Sackett involved a couple who, in the course of developing a residential lot they owned into a home site, filled in part of the lot with dirt and rock. Unbeknownst to the Sacketts, their lot contained wetlands that the EPA considered to be within federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). If that were true, the Sacketts could not lawfully fill the wetlands without a federal permit. The EPA issued a compliance order containing “Findings and Conclusions” that the lot did in fact contain wetlands subject to EPA jurisdiction. The order also directed the Sacketts to restore the lot in accordance with an EPA work plan and to provide EPA with access to the lot and to records concerning conditions at the lot.

The Sacketts, who believed their lot did not contain wetlands subject to the CWA, requested a hearing before the EPA, which the agency refused to provide. The Sacketts then filed suit, but the lower courts dismissed it, finding that the compliance order did not qualify as final agency action under the APA. Thus, the Sacketts were unable to initiate a judicial proceeding to resolve the dispute over whether their wetlands were subject to the CWA. But if the EPA later went to court to enforce its compliance order, the government contended that statutory per-day penalties owing from the Sacketts would double, and that obtaining a necessary permit would be more onerous under applicable regulations. In essence, therefore, the EPA compliance order was coercive — if the Sacketts “voluntarily” complied with the order, they would avoid the double penalties and the additional permitting requirements.

That coercive effect was central to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in holding that the compliance order was a final agency action, subject to judicial review. The coercive effect of the EPA compliance order in Sackett is also what makes the decision potentially applicable to other, similarly-coercive agency directives and procedures. Under the test articulated by the Court in a 1997 decision, Bennett v. Spear, agency action is “final” for APA purposes if it both “determines rights and obligations” and marks the “consummation” of the agency’s decision-making process. The Court in Sackett found the former requirement satisfied because “legal consequences” flowed from the compliance order, i.e., the doubling of the statutory penalties and tightening of the wetlands permitting requirements. The government contended, however, that even though the EPA refused the Sacketts’ request for a hearing, the compliance order was not the end of the Agency’s decision-making process. The government pointed to a portion of the order that invited the Sacketts to “engage in informal discussion” with the EPA regarding the order’s terms and requirements and/or any allegations in the order that they believed to be inaccurate. The Court rejected this argument, and found the compliance order sufficiently final, because it conferred no “entitlement” to further Agency review. The Court concluded that the “mere possibility” that an agency might reconsider as a result of informal discussions “does not suffice to make an otherwise final agency action nonfinal.”

Underlying the Sackett decision is a concern, expressly noted by the Court, that agencies should not be allowed to “strong-arm . . . regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review.” When regulated parties face such strong-arming at the hands of federal agencies they should now consider whether, pursuant to Sackett, judicial redress is available under the APA.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

USEPA Proposes to Retain Current GHG Thresholds in Step 3 of the Tailoring Rule

Recently an article by Energy and Public Utilities Group of Schiff Hardin LLP regarding the USEPA’s GHG Thresholds appeared in The National Law Review:

As the D.C. Court of Appeals heard an unprecedented two days of oral argument on challenges to USEPA’s suite of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) regulations, USEPA issued an advance copy of yet another GHG regulation-the third step of its GHG permit Tailoring Rule (“Proposed Step 3 Rule”). Advance copy of Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517 available at www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/TRStep3_Proposal_FRN.pdf. Proposed Step 3 retains the current GHG permitting thresholds for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V Operating Permit Programs under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The proposal is consistent with USEPA’s phased-in approach to tailor the requirements of the CAA to apply to only the largest emitters. In so doing, USEPA recognizes that state agencies are not ready to handle a bigger permitting program.

In 2010, USEPA committed to complete action on a Step 3 rulemaking by July 1, 2012, and to make Step 3 effective on July 1, 2013. Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule were promulgated in May 2010, applying only to the largest sources of GHG emissions. In that rule, USEPA stated that it would take comment and consider whether to include smaller sources or lower the trigger for applicability in Step 3. In the Proposed Step 3 Rule, USEPA determined that “the permitting authorities are not significantly better positioned now” to process more GHG permits than they were in May 2010, so USEPA proposes to retain the current applicability thresholds promulgated under Steps 1 and 2.

The thresholds for determining GHG PSD applicability are as follows:

  • Step One:
    • Starting January 2, 2011, GHGs must be addressed in Title V permits for all sources that are otherwise subject to Title V permitting requirements based on their emissions of non-GHG pollutants.
    • In addition, PSD requirements apply to GHGs for projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year (“tpy”) carbon dioxide equivalent (“CO2e”), but only for projects that are “major modifications” as a result of an increase in emissions of a regulated, non-GHG pollutant.
  • Step Two:
    • Starting July 1, 2011, some stationary sources that would not otherwise require Title V or PSD permits require such permits solely as a result of emitting GHGs.
    • Stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e (and 100 tpy GHGs on a mass basis) are subject to Title V permitting requirements.
    • Stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e (and 100 or 250 tpy GHGs on a mass basis, depending on the source) constitute “major stationary sources” under the PSD regulations. New stationary sources over the 100,000 tpy CO2e threshold are subject to PSD requirements for their GHG emissions. In addition, projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e are “major modifications” (assuming other elements are met and no exclusions apply), whether or not those projects would constitute “major modifications” based on an increase of any other pollutant.

USEPA also proposed two changes to streamline the permitting program under Step 3.

The first is to extend the use of the plantwide applicability limit (“PAL”) to GHG permitting. The source would apply for a PAL that would apply to the entire source rather than specific emissions points. This alteration would allow facilities to alter emissions units without triggering new permitting requirements, provided that emissions levels do not exceed the PAL. The added flexibility allows companies to respond to changing market conditions while streamlining permitting.

The second change would create the regulatory authority for USEPA to issue synthetic minor permits for GHGs where the agency is the PSD permitting authority. Under this approach, a GHG source could agree to an enforceable GHG emissions limit set below a level that would trigger PSD permitting requirements. Such a limit might be an hourly or daily fuel consumption limit, for example. USEPA proposes to give itself and its designated agents the ability to issue synthetic minor permits for GHG and potential GHG emitters. USEPA stated that many state and local permitting authorities already have the ability to issue such synthetic minor permits.

The proposal solicits comments on whether streamlined approaches could be appropriate for some source categories and requests that commenters provide detailed proposals for those source categories. For example, general permits could be considered for some. USEPA solicits comments on which source categories would be candidates for the creation for a Potential to Emit (“PTE”) specific rule or guidance; input on whether such a rule should target specific source categories or be made broadly available; and comments on the appropriate structure and requirements for such a rule.

The proposal requests comment on a number of other PSD program concepts, including permitting burden on state agencies, presumptive BACT and “empty” Title V permits. The proposal has not yet been published in the Federal Register but USEPA states that the comment period for the Proposed Step 3 Rule will end on April 20, 2012. A public hearing will be held on March 20, 2012 in Arlington, Virginia.

This brief summary does not address the many permitting decision nuances and requested comments reflected in the agency action, so careful reading of the proposed rule is suggested. For more information about the Tailoring Rule, please see our prior updates: “USEPA Issues Final Tailoring Rule” and“Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Permitting Deadlines in 2011”.

© 2012 Schiff Hardin LLP

One Individual and 20 Organizations Receive Inaugural Climate Leadership Awards

An article by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently was published in The National Law Review regarding Climate Leadership Awards:

WASHINGTON:  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Association of Climate Change Officers (ACCO),the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) (formerly the Pew Center on Global Climate Change), and The Climate Registry (TCR) named the winners of the inaugural Climate Leadership Awards. The awards recognize corporate, organizational, and individual leadership in addressing climate change and reducing carbon pollution. From setting and exceeding aggressive emissions reduction goals to reducing the emissions associated with shipping goods, these organizations are improving efficiency, identifying energy and cost saving opportunities, and reducing pollution.

“The inaugural winners of the Climate Leadership Award have demonstrated aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) management actions and climate-related strategies,” said Daniel Kreeger, ACCO’s Executive Director. “The exemplary climate response exhibited by these organizations is a testament to the visionary leadership and innovation within their executive suite and workforce. The thought and action leadership of these award winners is a model for all companies, government entities, academic institutions and individuals for which to strive to achieve.”

“Corporate leadership is essential to meeting our climate and energy challenges,” said C2ES President Eileen Claussen. “We jo

in EPA in applauding the first winners of the Climate Leadership Award. These companies demonstrate every day that it’s possible to shrink your carbon footprint without compromising your bottom line. Their accomplishments will inspire other companies to act, and will contribute to strong, sensible policies benefiting both our economy and our climate.”

“The Climate Registry congratulates the inaugural Climate Leadership Award winners on their impressive achievements,” said David Rosenheim, the executive director of TCR. “As we transition in the next few years to a low carbon economy, these organizations will undoubtedly reap the benefits of taking aggressive action to reduce their carbon risk.”

Organizational Leadership: Recognizes organizations for exemplary leadership both in their internal response to climate change and through engagement of their peers, competitors, partners, and value chain:

  • IBM
  • San Diego Gas & Electric

Individual Leadership: Recognizes an individual for outstanding efforts in leading an organization’s response to climate change:

  • Gene Rodrigues, Director of Customer Energy Efficiency and Solar at Southern California Edison

Supply Chain Leadership: Recognizes organizations for actively addressing emissions outside their operations:

  • Port of Los Angeles
  • SAP
  • UPS

Excellence in GHG Management (Goal Achievement): Recognizes organizations for aggressively managing and reducing their GHG emissions:

  • Campbell Soup Company
  • Casella Waste Systems
  • Conservation Services Group
  • Cummins Inc.
  • Fairchild Semiconductor
  • Genzyme
  • Hasbro
  • Intel Corporation
  • International Paper
  • SC Johnson

Excellence in GHG Management (Goal Setting): Recognizes organizations for establishing aggressive GHG reduction goals:

  • Avaya
  • Bentley Prince Street
  • Campbell Soup Company
  • Ford Motor Company
  • Gap Inc.
  • Ingersoll Rand

The awards will be presented tonight at the inaugural Climate Leadership Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. The conference will bring together leaders from business, government and academic institutions who are interested in exchanging best practices on how to address climate change while simultaneously running more competitive and sustainable operations.

More information about the Climate Leadership Awards and award winners:http://epa.gov/climateleadership/awards/2012winners.html

© Copyright 2012 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Proposes Changes to Underground Storage Tank Regulations

Posted in the National Law Review an article by attorneys Julie A. Fournier, Michael J. Hughes and Lisa S. Zebovitz of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP about the EPA’s porposed changes to the underground storage tanks:

 

For the first time since federal regulations regarding underground storage tanks (USTs) were first promulgated in 1988, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing significant changes and additions to these regulations. The proposed rulemaking, found at 76 FR 71708, includes new requirements for USTs primarily focusing on proper operation and maintenance and spill prevention. EPA asserts that the revisions will improve the detection and prevention of UST releases leading to increased protection of human health and the environment.

Newly added requirements include secondary containment for new and replaced USTs, operator training programs, and periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems, such as monthly inspections of spill prevention and release detection equipment, yearly testing of spill prevention equipment, and the testing of overfill prevention and certain secondary containment equipment every three years. In addition, deferrals for certain types of tanks will be eliminated. These requirements are intended to reflect significant technological advances made in the last two decades.

The proposed changes may be significant to the commercial and manufacturing sectors if they become effective. From a practical standpoint, owners and operators of tanks in the vast majority of states with approved UST programs may ultimately see changes in state regulations. States currently operating under an approved UST program will have three years to submit a revised program approval package to conform to the new regulations. Therefore, if the proposed regulations become effective, owners and operators of USTs should monitor changes to state programs closely. Owners and operators located in one of the few remaining states that do not have an approved UST program may be required under the new regulations to notify EPA when bringing a UST system into use or following a change in ownership.

Documents related to the proposed changes identified above, including a comparison of the current and proposed regulations and a Regulatory Impact Analysis, are available on EPA’s Web site. Comments to the proposed rule must be received by EPA on or before Feb. 16, 2012.

© 2011 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

It's Not Easy Being Green: Understanding and Avoiding the Pitfalls of Green Marketing

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Anne E. Viner of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C. regarding the idenfication of “green” products and services:

A current trend among businesses is to identify their products and services as “green,” “environmentally safe,” “ozone friendly” or otherwise good for the environment. Companies do this to show that they are good stewards of the Earth and to attract customers who are interested in purchasing products that are “environmentally friendly.” But what does that phrase—or similar terminology—really mean? What sort of information must a business have in order to support these kinds of claims? Not surprisingly, there are a number of federal and state regulations, rules and guidelines that govern green marketing.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act prohibits deceptive representations in advertising, labeling, product inserts, catalogs and sales presentations. If statements concerning the environmental benefits of a product or service cannot be substantiated, they may be found to be deceptive by the FTC. Customers, competitors and environmental citizen groups often monitor green marketing and can file administrative complaints with the FTC if a company’s claims are misleading. Such complaints not only hurt businesses monetarily (legal expenses, administrative penalties, etc.), but can also damage the goodwill that the environmental claim was attempting to establish.

Federal Guidance

To help businesses determine when green marketing claims are acceptable and when they have gone too far, the FTC and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed guidelines to ensure that environmental marketing claims do not mislead consumers. Advertising, labeling, promotional materials, presentations and other forms of marketing that run afoul of the guidelines created by the FTC and EPA can result in such conduct being declared unlawful under the FTC Act.

The following guidelines apply broadly to all environmental marketing efforts—whether they are consumer-focused claims or business-to-business claims directed at suppliers, affiliated companies, distributors or other customers:

  • Clearly identify whether the advertised environmental benefit is with the product itself, the packaging, a service, or some other portion or component of the product, service or packaging. For example, if a box of aluminum foil is labeled “recyclable” without further elaboration, this claim would be considered deceptive if any part of either the box or the foil cannot be recycled.
  • Avoid overstatements of environmental benefits. For example, a package might be labeled “50% more recycled content than before” after the manufacturer upped the amount of recycled material from 2% to 3%. Although the claim is technically true, it gives a false impression that the amount of recycled material was significantly increased.
  • Be ready to substantiate any comparisons between products. For example, if an ad claims that a package creates “less waste than the leading national brand,” the advertiser must be able to substantiate the comparison with calculations comparing the relative solid waste contributions of the two packages. If it cannot, the ad runs afoul of the FTC Act and may create liability.

The guidelines created by the FTC and EPA also address the following specific environmental claims:

  • Avoid general, unqualified terms (such as “environmentally friendly” and “green”) that cannot be quantified and may convey a wide range of meanings to customers. The broader the term (a brand name like Eco-Safe, for example), the more likely it will be found deceptive by the FTC.
  • Reliable, scientific evidence must support claims that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable, as well as compostable or made with recycled, pre-consumer or post-consumer products. For example, if a shampoo is advertised as “biodegradable” with no qualifications, the manufacturer must have reliable scientific evidence that the product, which is customarily disposed of in sewer systems, will break down and decompose into elements found in nature in a short period of time. These specific terms have precise environmental meanings, and the guidelines give numerous examples of acceptable and deceptive uses of them.

The Guidelines in Action

Assume that a manufacturer wants to identify its entire product line of plastic buckets as being “made of recyclable material.” However, only one type of bucket in the line is made of post-consumer plastic and the post-consumer content averages just 20% annually. How can the manufacturer properly advertise the recycled content of its bucket line? According to the FTC and EPA guidelines, it is deceptive to identify the entire line as “green” or as being “made of recycled materials.” These broad, unquantifiable terms should also be avoided when advertising the one type of bucket that actually is made from post-consumer plastic. However, it is acceptable to use the 20% annual average of recycled material in marketing that particular bucket type. Such averaging is permissible, provided the company’s claims can be substantiated with scientific evidence.

The FTC Act and related guidance is just one example of regulations that are potentially applicable to green marketing claims. The EPA has established additional regulations and guidance under its Consumer Labeling Initiative and EPA Environmentally Preferable Procurement Program. The International Organization for Standardization also has developed environmental labeling criteria for products sold worldwide. Many states have their own environmental disclosure and marketing requirements as well.

Given the numerous requirements associated with environmental marketing, along with the potential risks of being found deceptive, it really isn’t easy being green. So, before your business makes any environmental claims about its products or services, carefully consider how you will state the environmental benefits, whether they can be supported with scientific evidence and what regulations may govern your claims.

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.