By Lawrence Culleen, Brian Israel, Jonathan Martel, Ethan Shenkman and Allie Conn

Law360 (May 1, 2020, 5:11 PM EDT) --

Lawrence Culleen

Brian Israel

Jonathan Martel

Ethan Shenkman

Allie Conn

COVID-19 has struck at a critical time in the enactment of the Trump administration's environmental regulatory and deregulatory agenda. With only seven months left until Election Day, the crisis caused by the pandemic has resulted in significant regulatory, litigation and economic disruption.

This may result in some of the administration's key agenda items being delayed, rushed, pushed into the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, look-back period (which could begin as early as next month), or left to the next presidential term. Moreover, the impacts of COVID-19 might shift environmental policy priorities with an emphasis on revitalizing the economy.

The crisis has also prompted calls for Congress to incorporate climate policies in relief programs, as recently demonstrated by Senate Democrats' request to condition government assistance to the airline and cruise line industries on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and ocean dumping.[1]

This article discusses possible outcomes for the remainder of Trump's environmental agenda, and highlights the key rules that could be affected. Potentially at risk are rules that have been proposed but not yet finalized, final rules being reviewed in court and regulatory initiatives that have been promised but not yet proposed. Practitioners and regulated entities should stay closely apprised of developments as the volatile situation unfolds throughout the rest of 2020.

Proposed Rulemakings at Risk

Many of the administration's key regulatory efforts are currently in rulemaking limbo — the agency has proposed a rule but has not completed review of public comments and/or interagency review.

Finalizing all of these regulatory actions would be difficult to achieve, even without the strain of the pandemic on the federal workforce and public. In the midst of the current crisis, some public interest groups and states have called for the administration to halt work on deregulation, and focus resources on the COVID-19 response instead.[2]

All told, the disruption caused by COVID-19 could have significant implications for the administration's agenda in a number of different ways. That being said, it should be noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made significant progress on a number of major initiatives since stay-at-home orders were announced.

Since April 9, the EPA has released the final greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles; finalized two separate revisions under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards; proposed a rule retaining the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, for particulate matter; proposed streamlining the fuels regulatory program under the Clean Air Act, or CAA; and committed to finalizing the NAAQS for ozone by the end of the year.

Whether the EPA can keep up this pace remains to be seen. But this recent flurry of activity indicates that the agency is not slowing down its efforts.

Delays and Disruption in the Rulemaking Process

The disruption caused by COVID-19 could delay comment periods — or, alternatively, cause the administration to push the limits of the public review process.

Courts have interpreted the Administrative Procedure Act to require a "meaningful" opportunity for public comment. Although the APA does not establish a minimum public review period, certain other statutes do,[3] and executive orders encourage agencies to provide at least 60 days for public comment.[4]

On April 1, House Democratic leaders, citing concerns over the public's ability to meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process during the pandemic, urged the White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, to extend all active comment periods "by at least 45 days beyond the end of the declared national emergency."[5] House Democrats reiterated this request in a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on April 8.[6]

Senate Democrats have also urged the administration to halt rulemaking processes.[7] Most recently, a group of 21 Senate Democrats requested that the OMB indefinitely extend all public comment periods and pause any new rulemakings unless explicitly required for the COVID-19 response.[8] The OMB has advised agencies to use their discretion to extend comment periods on a case-by-case basis.[9]

Agencies commonly hold in-person public hearings to ensure that all members of the public have the ability to participate in the rulemaking process. Some statutes, such as the CAA, specifically require the opportunity for "oral presentations," which has generally necessitated in-person meetings.[10]

However, the EPA has announced that, due to the crisis, it will carry on with comment periods without in-person meetings, relying instead on electronic submittals.[11] The EPA has yet to announce how it will resolve other rulemaking requirements, such as making dockets open for public inspection.[12]

Many of President Donald Trump's remaining proposals have received hundreds of thousands of comments on particularly controversial issues, and agencies are required to consider and respond to those that are "significant." Doing so adequately before issuance of a final rule is time- and resource-intensive. In addition, finalizing rules commonly requires numerous briefings with stakeholders and senior agency officials, which may prove difficult to coordinate among a remote workforce.

The current strain on resources due to COVID-19 could cause further delays in finalization, or a rush job that could be more susceptible to challenges in court. The timing of a rule's finalization depends, in part, on where it is in the OMB review process. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, OMB review can take up to 90 days (which can be extended) to allow for adequate interagency consideration.

Emergency measures to address the COVID-19 crisis, including federal staff telework and elimination of in-person hearings and meetings, could cause further delay in an already stressed regulatory review process. Still, the EPA's recent refusals to grant extensions or postpone hearings due to the pandemic may signal that the agency intends to charge ahead to the extent possible.[13]

The Look-Back Period Under the Congressional Review Act 

Delays caused by COVID-19 may push the release of final rules into the look-back period, during which they could be subject to eventual repeal under the CRA. The repercussions of this will be significant if Democrats win both houses of Congress and the presidency in the fall.

Under the CRA, Congress has the authority to pass a joint resolution disapproving an agency rule issued toward the end of the previous administration. This joint resolution is powerful, because it makes the rule "of no force and effect," and bans the agency from issuing another rule in "substantially the same form" unless specifically authorized by statute.

The Trump administration and the 115th Congress made unprecedented use of the CRA — repealing 15 rules issued by the Obama administration.[14] Notably, in April 2019, the OMB issued an expansive definition of the types of agency actions covered by the CRA, including interpretive rules and some guidance documents.[15]

The ability of a new Democratic administration to take similar advantage of the CRA will depend on two factors: (1) when federal agencies submit their rules to Congress for review, and (2) the number of remaining legislative days in the 116th Congress.

Upon submission of a rule, Congress has 60 days to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval.[16] If Congress adjourns its annual session before 60 session days in the Senate (or 60 legislative days in the House) have elapsed, the review period restarts in the next legislative session — creating a look-back period.[17] In other words, for rules issued by the current administration to avoid CRA review, they must be submitted to Congress with at least 60 session and legislative days left on the calendar.

It is not possible to determine the precise date on which the look-back period begins until all legislative and session days have been held.[18] Some have speculated that this deadline could be as early as late May.[19] Only time will tell whether, and the extent to which, the tool that kicked off this administration's deregulatory agenda will also be its undoing.

These are some of the key proposals on Trump's agenda that are not yet final (in reverse chronological order, beginning with those whose comment periods will close last):

• National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: On April 14, Wheeler signed the proposal to retain the current standards (initially set in 2013); a group of senators sent a letter to Wheeler expressing concerns that the proposal weakens public health protections during the pandemic, linking air pollution to higher death rates due to COVID-19; the EPA previously announced December 2020 as the target date to finalize these standards.[20]

• Fuels Regulatory Streamlining Rule: Signed April 13, the proposal seeks to overhaul the fuels regulatory program via a host of revisions which are slated to take effect on Jan. 1, 2021.[21]

• Federal CCR Permit Program Proposal: In response to public interest groups' request for a 120-day extension of the comment period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the EPA extended the comment period by only 30 days, to May 20.[22]

• Rule for RCRA Operators to Seek Delays of Ash Disposal Compliance Deadlines: The comment period closed April 17; the EPA declined to extend the 45-day comment period amid the COVID-19 crisis because of the "critical timeframes" presented in the rule and "straightforward" changes; during an April 7 virtual hearing, environmental groups argued that the EPA's work toward finalization of the rule during the COVID-19 crisis unreasonably limits public participation.[23]

• Significant New Use Rule for Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate Substances: The comment period closed April 17; the EPA declined requests to extend the comment period due to COVID-19; under the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, the EPA has a deadline of June 22 to take specific actions on PFAS, including finalization of this rule.[24]

• Rule Restricting Scientific Studies Relied upon in Rulemakings: The EPA extended the comment period by 30 days, to May 18, due to the COVID-19 crisis; scientists and physicians have opposed the proposal.[25]

• Rollback of Penalties for Companies that "Incidentally" Kill Birds: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service comment period closed March 19; some states argue that the rule runs counter to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.[26]

• Comprehensive Overhaul of National Environmental Policy Act Regulations: The White House Council on Environmental Quality comment period closed March 10; opponents argue the proposal violates NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act.[27]

• Lead and Copper Revisions under the Safe Drinking Water Act: The comment period closed Feb. 12; state drinking water regulators, drinking water utilities and former EPA officials have raised concerns over the revisions.[28]

• Revisions to Obama-era Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Power Plants: The comment period closed Jan. 21; environmentalists argue that the rule unreasonably assumes that facilities will voluntarily adopt stricter requirements in exchange for longer compliance deadlines.[29]

• Overhaul of Environmental Appeals Board Review: The comment period closed Jan. 2; the proposal faces opposition by environmental groups and some states.[30]

• Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas Sector: The comment period closed Nov. 25, 2019; environmental groups have alleged the proposal will lead to increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[31]

• Repeal of the "Once In, Always In" Rule for Major Sources under the CAA: The comment period closed Nov. 1, 2019; the EPA's goal was been to finalize the rule by April; environmentalists and some states have raised concerns that the proposal will result in plants removing important pollution controls.[32]

• Regulation of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Substances: The comment period closed Oct. 28, 2019; the Toxic Substances Control Act requires finalization of the rule before the end of the year; comments reveal concerns over whether the EPA should conduct a risk analysis of persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals before regulating.[33]

• Narrowing Timing and Scope of State Review under Clean Water Act Section 401: The comment period closed Oct. 21, 2019; some states and environmental groups argue the proposal unlawfully curtails state authority.[34]

• Coal Ash Landfill Rule Governing Disposal of Waste: The comment period closed Oct. 15, 2019; a number of environmental and industry groups are critical of the proposal.[35]

• New Source Review "Applicability" Revisions to Project Emissions Accounting: The comment period closed Oct. 8, 2019; this is one of a series of controversial measures designed to reform the New Source Review program under the Clean Air Act.[36]

• Perchlorate Drinking Water Regulation: The comment period closed Aug. 26, 2019; the EPA and environmental groups have agreed to an extension until June 19 for the agency's court-ordered deadline to finalize the long-delayed rule.[37]

• Revision of 2015 New Source Performance Standards for Power Plants: The comment period closed March 18, 2019; environmental groups have opposed the proposal's revocation of certain pollution control technology requirements; due to delays related to COVID-19, the EPA does not expect to finalize until this summer.[38]

• Repeal of Emission Requirements for Glider Vehicles and Engines: The comment period closed Jan. 5, 2018; initially proposed in 2017, interested industry groups urged the EPA to revive the proposal to scrap Obama-era limits.[39]

Final Rules Stalled in Court

Proposed rules are not the only ones at risk. The Trump administration is also in a race against the clock for the judicial review process to play out in challenges to final rules that have already been issued.

Proponents of these rules would prefer that this administration's appointees oversee briefing and oral argument, and that courts issue decisions before a potential new administration could reconsider the position of the executive branch. In particular, for cases in which the administration has promulgated a rule that advances an interpretation of a statute, judicial determination that the interpretation is correct would be more difficult for a future administration to overcome.

COVID-19 has already stalled some of these cases. Many courthouses have closed their doors, postponed oral arguments and extended briefing schedules. Courts are also considering how to transition to remote forms of oral arguments and hearings.

As many courts are now prioritizing essential proceedings, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that courts will decide some of these cases before the end of the year. Indeed, there are certain rules whose fate may well rest on the pace and timing of the litigation challenging their validity:

• Rollback of Obama-era Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule: Signed April 16; the rule's new cost-benefit methodology has faced criticism by environmentalists who argue that the new method could be used to weaken regulations for other air pollutants; litigation is likely in the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit.[40]

• Rule Creating Subcategory of Power Plants Under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule: Signed April 9; opponents argue that the rule weakens the MATS limits for the new subcategory of power plants, resulting in increased air pollution.[41]

• Greenhouse Gas Fuel Economy Standards for Light Duty Vehicles: Signed March 31; the EPA has received some criticism for finalizing during the COVID-19 crisis; litigation expected in the D.C. Circuit.[42]

• The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Finalized April 21; challenges have already been brought against the rule, and more are expected in district courts across the country; these cases can proceed concurrently, raising the possibility that some courts will stay the rule while others will affirm.[43]

• Repeal Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair HFC Regulations: Finalized March 11; a coalition of 16 states have argued the proposal is unlawful and would increase, rather than decrease, emissions; litigation is expected in the D.C. Circuit.[44]

• Renewable Fuel Standards Blending Volume Obligations for 2020: Finalized in February; challenges have already been brought by various industry groups in the D.C. Circuit.[45]

• Rollback of Obama-era Risk Management Plan Rule: Finalized Dec. 19, 2019; litigation underway in the D.C. Circuit; challengers are seeking a six-month delay in litigation.[46]

• SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One Rule: Finalized Sept. 27, 2019; revokes waiver for California to implement more stringent greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards; litigation underway in both the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[47]

• Landfill Methane Delay Rule: Finalized Aug. 26, 2019; litigation underway in the D.C. Circuit; under the current schedule, briefing will be completed by Aug. 31.[48]

• The Affordable Clean Energy Rule: Finalized July 8, 2019; rescinds and replaces Obama-era Clean Power Plan; litigation underway in the D.C. Circuit, but briefing schedule extended due to COVID-19.[49]

Regulatory Initiatives Not Yet Proposed

As time, attention and resources are diverted to the COVID-19 response effort, there will be less room for new regulatory proposals before January 2021, much less their completion. Nevertheless, there are some promised initiatives that are worth watching to see if they materialize or wind up derailed in light of the crisis:

• Cost-Benefit Rule under the CAA: The EPA committed to issue a series of regulations addressing methodology for cost-benefit analysis on a media-specific basis;[50] the agency's Office of Air and Radiation was the first office to submit its proposal for OMB review, on April 10.[51]

• NAAQS for Ozone: In preparation for a proposal, EPA staff drafted a recommendation to retain the existing standards for peer review in January; reviewers pointed out flaws in the agency's risk methodology and recommended that the agency consult with outside experts; acknowledging the "difficulty of this task," Wheeler has directed his staff to complete review of the ozone NAAQS by the end of the year.[52]

• Exceptions to Toxic Substances Control Act Fees Rule: On March 25, the EPA announced its plan to consider exemptions to the rule's self-identification requirements associated with EPA-initiated risk evaluations.[53]

• Renewable Fuel Standards Reset of Statutory Blending Volumes for 2021 and 2022: A proposal was under review at the OMB in October 2019, but the EPA formally withdrew its draft two months later.[54]

• Heavy Duty Truck Nitrous Oxide Emission Cuts: The EPA is considering reductions in NOx emissions as part of its Cleaner Trucks Initiative to tighten standards for air emissions from heavy-duty trucks; interested industry groups have called for the EPA to delay developments on this initiative due to COVID-19.[55]

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused great uncertainty throughout the economy, and has had a devastating impact on the country. It is still too early to determine its effect on the administration's efforts to remake the environmental regulatory landscape, but it is not premature to say that its imprint will be significant. 

---

Lawrence Culleen is a partner at Arnold & Porter.

Brian Israel is a partner at the firm, and chairs its environmental practice group

Jonathan Martel is a partner at the firm.

Ethan Shenkman is a partner at the firm.

Allie Conn is an associate at the firm.

Associate Emily Orler contributed to this article.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

[1] Letter from Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, Markey, Smith, Heinrich, Booker, Blumenthal and Stabenow to Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer and Leader McCarthy (March 18, 2020).

[2] Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Public Interest Groups Call for Federal Rulemaking Freeze, Law360 (March 24, 2020), https://www.law360.com/articles/1256501/public-interest-groups-call-for-federal-rulemaking-freeze.

[3] See e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 6295(p)(2).

[4] Executive Order 13563, § 2(b) ("To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generally be at least 60 days"); Exec. Order No . 12866, § 6(a) ("In addition, each agency should afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulation, which in most cases should include a comment period of not less than 60 days").

[5] Letter from certain Committee Chairs, U.S. House of Representatives, to Russel T. Vought, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget (April 1, 2020).

[6] Letter from Congressmen Scott, McNerney, Quigley and 75 other members of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, to Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, EPA (April 8, 2020).

[7] Letter from Senators Markey, Booker, Warren, Merkley, Harris, Durbin, Casey and Duckworth, U.S. Senate, to Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, EPA (April 2, 2020); Letter from Senators Wyden, Merkley and Udall, U.S. Senate, to David L. Bernhardt, U.S. Department of Interior (April 3, 2020).

[8] Letter from 22 Senators, U.S. Senate, to Russel T. Vought, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget (April 8, 2020).

[9] Adam Lidgett, Dems Want Rule Comment Periods Paused Amid Outbreak, Law360 (April 2, 2020), https://www.law360.com/articles/1259550/dems-want-rule-comment-periods-paused-amid-outbreak-.

[10] See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(5).

[11] See supra, note 2 ("As regulations.gov is fully functioning, there is no barrier to the public providing comment during the established periods").

[12] See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(3).

[13] See Letter from Peter Wright, EPA Assistant Administrator, to Lisa Evans, Earthjustice Senior Counsel (April 3, 2020); Letter from Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator, EPA, to Larry Culleen, Arnold & Porter (April 7, 2020).

[14] The Congressional Review Act (CRA) Frequently Asked Questions, CRS (Jan. 14, 2020).

[15] Guidance on Compliance with the Congressional Review Act, OMB (April 11, 2019).

[16] 5 U.S.C. § 802(a).

[17] 5 U.S.C. § 801(d)(1).

[18] For example, during the previous administration, the Congressional Research Service initially speculated the look-back period date would be May 30, 2016, but subsequently revised that date to June 13, 2016. See Major Obama Administration Rules Potentially Eligible to be Overturned Under the Congressional Review Act in the 115th Congress, CRS (Nov. 17, 2016), Agency Final Rules Submitted on or after June 13, 2016, May be Subject to Disapproval by the 115th Congress, CRS (Dec. 15, 2016).

[19] Upcoming CRA Deadline has Implications for Regulatory Oversight by Congress, GW University (Dec. 11, 2019).

[20] Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (pre-publication version), EPA (April 14, 2020); Letter from Senators Hassan, Bennet, Booker, Coons, Gillibrand, King, Merkley, Sanders, Warren, Carper, Blumenthal, Casey, Feinstein, Harris, Markey, Reed, Van Hollen and Whitehouse, U.S. Senate, to Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, EPA (April 14, 2020).

[21] Fuel Regulatory Streamlining (pre-publication version), EPA (April 13, 2020); see also Sarah Grey & Jonathan Martel, EPA Fuels Program Streamlining Proposal, Arnold & Porter (April 17, 2020).

[22] Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Federal CCR Permit Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 9,940 (Feb. 20, 2020); Letter from Peter Wright, supra note 13.

[23] Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: A Holistic Approach to Closure Part B: Alternate Demonstration for Unlined Surface Impoundments; Implementation of Closure, 85 Fed. Reg. 12,456 (March 3, 2020); Letter from Peter Wright, supra note 13; Virtual Public Hearing for Proposed Rule Change: No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0173, Transcript of Proceedings, U.S. EPA (April 7, 2020).

[24] Significant New Use: Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical Substances, 85 Fed. Reg. 12,479 (March 3, 2020); Letter from Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, supra note 13.

[25] Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,396 (March 18, 2020); Letter from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator, EPA, to Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives (April 2, 2020).

[26] Regulations Governing Take of Migratory Birds, 85 Fed. Reg. 5,915 (Feb. 3, 2020).

[27] Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85 Fed. Reg. 1,684 (Jan. 10, 2020). See also CEQ Proposes Comprehensive Changes to NEPA Regulations, Arnold & Porter (Jan. 15, 2020).

[28] National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Revisions, 84 Fed. Reg. 61,684 (Nov. 13, 2019).

[29] Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, 84 Fed. Reg. 64,620 (Nov. 22, 2019).

[30] Modernizing the Administrative Exhaustion Requirement for Permitting Decisions and Streamlining Procedures for Permit Appeals, 84 Fed. Reg. 66,084 (Dec. 3, 2019).

[31] Oil & Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review, 84 Fed. Reg. 50,244 (Sept. 24, 2019).

[32] Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 84 Fed. Reg. 36,304 (July 26, 2019).

[33] Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h), 84 Fed. Reg. 36,728 (July 29, 2019).

[34] Updating Regulations on Water Quality Certification, 84 Fed. Reg. 44,080 (Aug. 22, 2019).

[35] Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Enhancing Public Access to Information; Reconsideration of Beneficial Use Criteria and Piles, 84 Fed. Reg. 40,353 (Aug. 14, 2019).

[36] Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Project Emissions Accounting, 84 Fed. Reg. 39,244 (Aug. 9, 2019).

[37] National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Perchlorate, 84 Fed. Reg. 30,524 (June 26, 2019).

[38] Review of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 83 Fed. Reg. 65,424 (Dec. 20, 2018).

[39] Repeal of Emission Requirements for Glider Vehicles, Glider Engines, and Glider Kits, 82 Fed. Reg. 53,442 (Nov. 16, 2017).

[40] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generation Units — Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review (pre-publication version), EPA (April 16, 2020); see Michael Phillis, EPA Rolls Back Basis for Power Plant Mercury Emission Limit, Law360 (April 16, 2020), https://www.law360.com/articles/1264618/epa-rolls-back-basis-for-power-plant-mercury-emission-limit.

[41] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units — Subcategory of Certain Existing Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Firing Eastern Bituminous Coal Refuse for Emissions of Acid Gas Hazardous Pollutants (pre-publication version), EPA (April 9, 2020).

[42] Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Program Technical Amendments (pre-publication version), EPA (March 31, 2020).

[43] The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States," EPA (Jan. 23, 2020).

[44] Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revisions to the Refrigerant Management Program's Extension to Substitutes, 85 Fed. Reg. 14,150 (March 11, 2020); Comments of Massachusetts et al. re: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revisions to the Refrigerant Management Program's Extension to Substitutes.

[45] Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2020 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2021 and Other Changes, 85 Fed. Reg. 7,016 (Feb. 6, 2020).

[46] Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act, 84 Fed. Reg. 69,834 (Dec. 19, 2019).

[47] The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicle Rule Part One: One National Program, 84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019).

[48] Adopting Requirements in Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 84 Fed. Reg. 44,547 (Aug. 26, 2019).

[49] Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations, 84 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (July 8, 2019).

[50] Memorandum from Andrew Wheeler, EPA, on Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Rulemaking Process (May 13, 2019).

[51] Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (last visited April 29, 2020).

[52] Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Draft Report, EPA CASAC (Jan. 21, 2020); Letter from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator, EPA, to Louis Anthony Cox, Jr., Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (April 1, 2020).

[53] Information on Plan to Reduce TSCA Fees Burden and No Action Assurance, EPA (March 25, 2020). For more on the planned changes and their implications, see Larry Culleen, EPA Grants Near Term TSCA Relief; Commits to Propose Changes to Scope of Fees Rule, Arnold & Porter Advisory (April 1, 2020).

[54] Refiners Bummed RFS Reset Rule Withdrawn, Advanced Biofuels USA, (Dec. 20, 2019).

[55] Cleaner Trucks Initiative, EPA (March 27, 2020); Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards, 85 Fed. Reg. 3,306 (Jan. 21, 2020).

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.