In February 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced it will delay the addition of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to its Toxics Release Inventory Report for the 2025 reporting year. “PFAS” is a term used to describe a diverse group of chemicals contained in many consumer products and industrial processes. The EPA’s announcement followed President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which, among other things, requested a 60-day postponement “to the effective date memorandum for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, so that the administration may review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” Accordingly, impacted industries now have additional time to prepare for new PFAS reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Pollution Prevention Act (“PPA”) following the addition of nine PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”).

On October 18, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its highly anticipated PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitments to Action 2021-2024, setting forth a three-year multi-agency strategy to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). The plan outlines actions that will fundamentally alter the administrative landscape around PFAS.

The Trump Administration, through the EPA and Corps, announced its new regulatory definition for WOTUS on December 11, 2018. Shortly after the government shutdown ended earlier this year, the proposed rule appeared in the February 14, 2019, Federal Register and EPA held a public hearing in Kansas City, Kansas, on February 27th and 28th. Much

Since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, there has been extensive debate over which waters may be regulated as “waters of the United States” under the Act. Over the years, various federal courts have reached differing conclusions on the question of whether discharges to groundwater can be considered discharges to waters of the United

Attorney Megan Caldwell recently blogged about two recent agency enforcement memoranda impacting the enforcement of environmental violations. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have issued memos make changes in how agencies will focus on their roles in regards to enforcement. These changes may affect your company’s approach to compliance with certain agency guidance documents

On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) withdrew its 1995 “once in always in” guidance. Under that guidance, facilities classified as “major sources” of hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) as of the “first compliance date” of a maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) standard under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act are required

On December 4, 2017, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) amended its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The rule reduces the primary annual standard for PM2.5 from 15.0 to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). DNR was required to promulgate this rule to be consistent with the U.S. EPA NAAQS for PM2.5, published in January, 2013. The DNR rule is scheduled to be effective January 1, 2018, and will be submitted to the EPA as a revision to the Wisconsin state implementation plan.

Husch Blackwell’s Charlie Merrill authored an article, “It’s Up To EPA, Congress To Act On Commerce Reg Reforms” that appeared in Law360 this week. The article identifies recommendations for reform and actions needed for this reform to take place.

The U. S. Department of Commerce recently issued a report on the input it received from manufacturers

The month of August, 2017 has seen three distinct developments that may significantly impact management of “Coal Combustion Residuals,” or “CCR,” which include bottom ash, fly ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials generated from burning coal at steam powered electricity plants. Although one of these developments may provide a degree of regulatory relief, the other two may preserve or even strengthen existing regulatory requirements.