On February 5, 2020, EPA issued a final rule revising the petition provisions of the Title V permitting program. Under the CAA Title V program, permitting authorities must submit proposed Title V permits to the EPA administrator for a 45-day review before issuing the final permit. If the administrator has no objections within this period, any person may petition the administrator within 60 days thereafter to ask EPA to object to the permit.

On January 30, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) released its anticipated Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) proposed rule. The purpose of the proposed rule is to codify the December 2017 Department of Interior (“DOI”) Solicitor opinion (“M-Opinion”) limiting liability under the MBTA. The M-Opinion overturned an earlier Obama Administration M-Opinion explicitly finding that MBTA liability applied to incidental take.

Troutman Sanders associate Andy Flavin authored an article published in Law360 titled “Getting State Approvals for Energy Storage Siting.” In the article, Andy explains why energy storage developers should carefully assess whether their project requires approval from state siting regulators and the possible implications. He wrote:

States normally

…

On January 31, 2020, California announced proposed changes to warning requirements under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, by releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposal”). Among other things, the changes are intended to clarify on-line warning requirements (through a website or using a mobile phone app) and catalog warning requirements. The Proposal also includes revised requirements specific to the sale of alcoholic beverages through delivery services, reflecting the provisions of an enforcement action settlement currently being negotiated by the Attorney General.

New federal reporting requirements for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) went into effect on January 1, 2020. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020 (NDAA), signed into law on December 20, 2019, required EPA to add certain PFAS to the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) list of reportable chemicals.

The NDAA identified fourteen specific PFAS chemicals for addition to the TRI list, and directed EPA to add other substances that met two criteria: (1) they were subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on or before December 20, 2019, and (2) they were identified as active in commerce on the TSCA Inventory that was published in February 2019. Among the new additions are some of the best-known and most-studied substances, including PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), and GenX chemicals (including hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid).

On January 28, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, No. 1:15-cv-00477 (D.D.C. 2020), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remanded, but did not vacate, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services’ (“USFWS”) April 2015 decision to list the northern long-eared bat (“NLEB”) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The court also vacated a component of the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Services (collectively, “Services”) significant portion of its range policy (the “SPR Policy”) regarding how to evaluate whether a species is endangered in a “significant portion of its range” once a determination has been made that the species is threatened throughout “all of its range.” The SPR Policy, issued in 2014, has formed the basis for other listing decisions and thus its vacatur has implications beyond the NLEB.

On Monday, January 27, the United States Supreme Court issued a notice granting both Florida and Georgia 45 days to respond to a special master recommendation recently issued by New Mexico-based federal Tenth Circuit Judge Paul Kelly, as well as time to address each other’s arguments in subsequent legal briefs.

The notice sets the stage for the justices to potentially hear the case later this spring or more likely, according to Court observers, in their next term that begins in October, 2020. The Court could also decide the 7-year-old case, Florida v. Georgia, without further oral arguments depending on the parties’ submissions. Florida sought to limit Georgia’s water usage in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin, where the Chattahoochee River transects Alabama and Georgia, the Flint River flows through rich South Georgia farmland, and the combined flows into the Apalachicola River ultimately reaches Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The headwaters of the basin within Lake Lanier serve as the main source of drinking water for a majority of metro Atlanta and irrigates farms in southwest Georgia, providing an economic impact to Georgia estimated to be $13.8 billion.

On January 23, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (collectively, “Agencies”) released the pre-publication version of the much-anticipated final rule narrowing the meaning of the term “waters of the United States,” which defines waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The final rule, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” represents the latest development in the Trump Administration’s extensive effort to repeal and replace the Obama Administration’s 2015 rule redefining the term (“2015 Rule”) and will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

On January 27, EPA published a preliminary list of manufacturers that are potentially subject to a fee obligation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). This is a follow-up notice to EPA’s designation of 20 additional substances as High Priority Substances in December, for which the agency will now go through a risk evaluation, including:

Plaintiffs across the country have filed suit seeking relief for their exposure to per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), a group of man-made chemicals that the plaintiffs hope to link to a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer. While the health effects attributable to these chemicals are under study by state and federal regulators, decisionmakers have been slow to implement rules and regulations that provide those who have been exposed to these chemicals with a clear path for recovery. While regulators grapple with these emerging contaminants, courts are weighing in on whether those injured by exposure to PFAS are entitled to relief under the existing regulatory landscape.