On November 15, EPA posted its pre-publication version of the Final Rule re-classifying aerosol cans as “universal waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which finalizes EPA’s March 16, 2018 proposal (83 Fed. Reg. 11,654).  As discussed in our prior blog post regarding the proposal, many aerosol cans have historically been classified as hazardous waste because of their ignitability, and thus often are subject to stringent regulations related to handling, transportation, and disposal.

Universal waste is a sub-category of RCRA regulated hazardous waste that allows certain widely generated products, such as batteries, certain pesticides, and lamps, to qualify for less stringent regulation than the traditional hazardous waste regime.  The Final Rule is intended by EPA to ease regulatory burdens on retail stores and others that discard hazardous waste aerosol cans by providing an optional pathway for streamlined waste management treatment; promote the collection and recycling of these cans; and encourage the development of municipal and commercial programs to reduce the quantity of aerosol cans going to municipal solid waste landfills or combustors. 

On November 13, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially opened the public comment period for its proposed revisions to its Lead and Copper Rule under the Safe Water Drinking Act. The EPA will receive comments on the proposal until January 13, 2020. A copy of proposal can be found…

On November, 4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the latest proposal to amend the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule. Since its original promulgation in April 2015, the CCR rule has been the subject of extensive litigation and numerous rounds of proposed and final revisions. Many of the revisions have sought to address decisions made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) and concerns raised by both industry and environmental groups. This latest round of proposed changes—entitled “A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure”—includes the following three categories of proposed amendments to the CCR Rule.

EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ new rule repealing the 2015 “Clean Water Rule,” will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow.

The “repeal rule” will take effect December 20, 2019, providing nationwide consistency regarding the jurisdiction of Waters of the U.S. and ending the current…

On October 10, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced long-awaited proposed revisions to its Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The proposed LCR revisions come nearly 30 years after the federal government last updated its lead and copper testing procedures. Originally promulgated in 1991, the LCR has long been criticized for its imprecise language and has come under fire in recent years in the wake of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

Under the Obama Administration, EPA issued rules for new sources in the oil and gas sector, both to expand the kinds of sources covered and to begin regulating a new pollutant—methane.  Although those rules were not expected to achieve significant new reductions in emissions, they triggered a requirement for EPA to expand its methane regulations further to existing sources.

EPA’s first major action under its February 2019 comprehensive Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan (previously discussed in detail here) is out. On September 25, EPA sent a request for public input on whether EPA should add “certain PFAS chemicals” to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). EPA issues advance notices of proposed rulemaking to get a sense of public reaction before it initiates an important regulatory change, typically before it has conducted significant research or expended agency resources.

On June 7, 2019, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) Office of General Counsel issued a memorandum to ACHP staff, clarifying the distinction between direct and indirect effects in meeting obligations under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).  ACHP’s memorandum is important to utilities, industrial, commercial and other entities because federal licensing and permitting agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior) are required under NHPA section 106 to evaluate effects of the license or permit on properties that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places.  ACHP’s memorandum clarified that direct effects may be the result of a physical connection, but may also include visual, auditory, or atmospheric impacts as well.

For most federal rules, you don’t need a map to figure out in which states they’re the current law.  But you do for the 2015 “Clean Water Rule,” which significantly expanded the reach of the Clean Water Act by redefining the term “waters of the United States.”  That’s one reason why, on September 12, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a new rule to repeal the Clean Water Rule and restore prior regulations.  This “repeal rule” will take formal effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 9, 2019 that addresses how facilities undertaking a project involving multiple air emission units are to account for emission increases and decreases associated with the project. The proposed rule incorporates an interpretation of EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) regulations originally advanced in a March 2018 guidance document from Administrator Scott Pruitt entitled “Project Emissions Accounting Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program.”