White House OSTP Issues RFI Regarding “Accelerating the American Scientific Enterprise”
On Thanksgiving Eve, November 26, 2025, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested input from interested parties on federal policy updates “that aim to accelerate the American scientific enterprise, enable groundbreaking discoveries, and ensure that scientific progress and technological innovation benefit all Americans.” 90 Fed. Reg. 54412. OSTP states that “[t]hrough this Request for Information (RFI), OSTP seeks input from academia; private sector organizations; industry groups; state, local, and tribal governments; and other stakeholders regarding priorities for strengthening the science and technology (S&T) ecosystem to support both the expansion of scientific knowledge and the mechanisms to transition these discoveries into the marketplace.” According to OSTP, the RFI “will inform the formulation of Executive branch efforts to advance and maintain U.S. S&T leadership.” Responses are due on Boxing Day, December 26, 2025.
According to OSTP, multiple forces are reshaping how scientific research is conducted. OSTP states that new institutional models such as focused research organizations operate outside traditional academic structures; emerging questions in fields like quantum information science and biology require ever-closer collaboration between engineering and basic science; and rapid progress in artificial intelligence (AI) promises to accelerate discovery cycles. These shifts demand continuous improvement in how the federal government supports scientific research. OSTP notes that simultaneously, “America’s strategic competitors have placed unprecedented focus on scientific advancement.” The convergence of new scientific opportunities, intensifying global competition, and evidence that traditional approaches to research could be greatly improved “call for a comprehensive assessment of how the Federal government prioritizes and structures scientific research.”
Questions Included in the RFI
OSTP invites responses to one or more of the following questions:
(i) What policy changes to federal funding mechanisms, procurement processes, or partnership authorities would enable stronger public-private collaboration and allow America to tap into its vast private sector to drive better use-inspired basic and early-stage applied research?
(ii) How can the federal government better support the translation of scientific discoveries from academia, national laboratories, and other research institutions into practical applications? Specifically, what changes to technology transfer policies, translational programs, or commercial incentives would accelerate the path from laboratory to market?
(iii) What policies would encourage the formation and scaling of regional innovation ecosystems that connect local businesses, universities, educational institutions, and the local workforce — particularly in areas where the federal government has existing research assets like national laboratories or federally-funded research centers?
(iv) How can federal policies strengthen the role played by small- and medium-sized businesses as both drivers of innovation and as early adopters of emerging technologies?
(v) What empirically grounded findings from metascience research and progress studies could inform federal grantmaking processes to maximize scientific productivity and increase total return on investment?
(vi) What reforms will enable the American scientific enterprise to pursue more high-risk, high-reward research that could transform our scientific understanding and unlock new technologies, while sustaining the incremental science essential for cumulative production of knowledge?
(vii) How can the federal government support novel institutional models for research that complement traditional university structures and enable projects that require vast resources, interdisciplinary coordination, or extended timelines?
(viii) How can the federal government leverage and prepare for advances in AI systems that may transform scientific research — including automated hypothesis generation, experimental design, literature synthesis, and autonomous experimentation? What infrastructure investments, organizational models, and workforce development strategies are needed to realize these capabilities while maintaining scientific rigor and research integrity?
(ix) What specific federal statutes, regulations, or policies create unnecessary barriers to scientific research or the deployment of research outcomes?
(x) How can federal programs better identify and develop scientific talent across the country, particularly leveraging digital tools and distributed research models to engage researchers outside traditional academic centers?
(xi) How can the federal government foster closer collaboration among scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers, and better integrate training pathways, recognizing that breakthrough research often requires deep collaboration between theoretical and applied expertise?
(xii) What policy mechanisms would ensure that the benefits of federally-funded research — including access to resulting technologies, economic opportunities, and improved quality of life — reach all Americans?
(xiii) How can the federal government strengthen research security to protect sensitive technologies and dual-use research while minimizing compliance burdens on researchers?
Commentary
The “valley of death” — the gap between basic science and commercial viability — is an acute point of failure in the U.S. innovation pipeline. Overcoming this requires policy adjustments that treat industry partners as essential co-creators, not merely customers. OSTP’s request comes on the heels of efforts to restore “Gold Standard Science” to improve the federal scientific enterprise — a broader push to reshape all aspects of scientific activities and to ensure the United States remains a global leader in rigorous, evidence-based science. The RFI comes at a pivotal moment as the current scientific ecosystem is being rapidly reshaped by emerging fields (e.g., computing/physics (quantum), life sciences (biology/chemistry), and automation/data analysis (AI)) and intensifying global competition. To maintain U.S. leadership, the federal government must pivot from relying solely on traditional support models such as grants to universities and national laboratories to a framework that emphasizes efficient public-private collaboration and modern, science-driven regulation.
This RFI provides an opportunity to advocate to the White House for an improved pipeline from lab bench to commercial products. From a toxicological and regulatory perspective, implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a relevant topic to consider. Regulatory uncertainty and delays in the implementation of TSCA, especially new chemical reviews, push an increasingly insurmountable obstacle to innovation onto businesses that are working to develop sustainable product chemistries. For sectors like advanced materials, biotechnology, and the chemical industry — fields fundamental to the Administration’s science and technology goals — the regulatory path to market must be transparent, timely, and risk-based. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) timely and risk-based review of existing chemicals will put de-selection pressure on traditional, high-hazard technologies. The implementation of TSCA provides a critical case study in how federal policy can inadvertently erect unnecessary barriers to bringing new, more sustainable chemistries and downstream products to market.
The current implementation of TSCA’s new chemical review process has, in practice, led to extended review times and a higher regulatory burden, particularly for sustainable and novel chemistries intended to replace older, less-safe legacy substances. Much can and should be done to improve this process. EPA must adhere strictly to statutory deadlines for premanufacture notice (PMN) review, especially for chemicals identified as low-volume, low-exposure, or those deemed inherently safer by design (e.g., green chemistry products). TSCA implementation must also better balance safety to human health and the environment with the goals of the circular economy. EPA should provide clear, explicit, and consistent guidance on how recycling, upcycling, and the reprocessing of materials — which may involve trace legacy substances — are treated under the new chemical and significant new use notice (SNUN) provisions. EPA must make both the PMN and SNUN review processes faster, more consistent, and considerate of actual risk (i.e., hazard and exposure), especially for innovations designed to be inherently safer or part of a sustainable circular economy. Punitive or ambiguous interpretations of these rules hinder domestic efforts to establish resilient supply chains for critical materials. Our domestic capability to manufacture chemical products is being off shored by some to avoid unknown and unpredictable regulatory outcomes under the current implementation of TSCA. Innovators are finding even the high barrier for market entry under the European Union’s (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) easier than commercializing under TSCA.
Some food for thought:
Are there ways to strengthen public-private collaboration and commercialization, especially for small- and medium-sized businesses?
Should EPA increase its use of robust computational toxicology and new approach methodologies to speed up assessments without sacrificing safety?
How can EPA adopt smart policies and regulations to ensure public safety and environmental protection while reducing unnecessary barriers to innovation and providing market certainty for industry to confidently invest in research and development?
Consider submitting comments to OSTP with your ideas on how to advance the American (and global) scientific enterprise, perhaps by creating a regulatory approach that is effective, efficient, and science-based, with a clear and predictable pathway to market.
C&I Solar Rooftop Installations are now Exempted from Building Modification Permit (Aor.1)
As Thailand seeks to streamline its processes related to the installation and adoption of renewable energy, the Thai government has announced Interior Ministerial Regulation No. 72, B.E. 2568 (2025), issued under the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 (1979). This regulation exempts the installation of solar rooftop panels weighing less than 20 kilograms per square meter from being classified as a “building modification”, thereby exempting the need to apply for a building modification permit for such installation.
What is the new regulation exactly?
Before this new regulation, a building modification permit was exempted for the installation of solar rooftops only on residential buildings and under certain conditions, as further detailed below.
The new regulation significantly broadens the scope of exemption for solar rooftop installations as follows:
Building Type: The exemption now applies to any type of building, whereas previously it was limited to just residential buildings and not commercial and industrial buildings.
Conditions: All previous conditions, such as area limit, structural safety certification, and prior notification, have been removed. The only remaining requirement is that the installation must not exceed 20 kilograms per square meter in weight.
Criteria
Old Exemption(Before November 19, 2025)
New Exemption(Effective November 19, 2025)
Building Type
Only residential buildings
Any type of building
Area Limit
Installation area not exceeding 160 sq.m.
No area limit specified
Weight Limit
Total weight not exceeding 20 kg per sq.m.
Total weight not exceeding 20 kg per sq.m. (unchanged)
Structural Safety Check
Must have structural stability inspection and certification by a licensed civil engineer
No requirement for structural safety certification mentioned
Notification to Local Officer
Must notify local authority before installation
No notification requirement mentioned
The exemption does not apply to ground-mounted or floating solar projects.
What effect will this have on solar C&I development in Thailand?
Based on (i) similar regulatory relaxations, such as the recent easing of factory licensing for solar rooftops and (ii) our discussion with officers from relevant governmental agencies, if the proposed solar rooftop projects meet the weight requirement, we anticipate the following:
Projects without submitted applications: Developers may proceed with installation and will not be required to submit a modification permit application.
Projects with pending applications: Applications that have already been submitted but not yet approved may be discontinued, with no further action required. The installation can commence regardless of the application status.
Area Coverage: This relaxation applies to projects both inside and outside industrial estate areas without further implementing regulations to be issued by the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand.
It is essential to ensure that all projects remain fully compliant with all applicable energy-related laws, regulations, and standards throughout the development process. In addition, where required by law, developers must secure the appropriate licenses and permits from the Energy Regulatory Commission prior to commencing any construction activities. Failure to obtain these approvals may result in legal penalties, project delays, or suspension of operations.
Are there potential challenges for this regulation?
While the regulation has only been recently introduced, we have identified two practical concerns with the new regulation as follows:
Self-Assessment and Structural Assurance: The exemption removes permit and certification requirements entirely, introducing a self-assessment model similar to tax compliance. No authority or independent engineer is required to verify compliance with the 20 kg/sq.m. threshold. This raises a critical question for building owners: How can they ensure contractors have calculated weight correctly? Without oversight, errors or poor workmanship could lead to structural issues and legal liability.
To reduce risk, parties should consider:
Engaging reputable contractors or power producers with a track record of compliance and technical competence.
Addressing compliance obligations in contracts, including warranties and indemnities related to structural safety and weight limits.
Opting for a high-level technical review by an independent engineer, even though not legally required, to confirm that the installation meets the 20 kg/sq.m. threshold.
Aor. 5 Complications: Projects that previously required a building modification certificate (Aor. 5) because an Aor. 1 was issued under the old regulation may now face uncertainty. For example, if a solar rooftop project is installed on a mall or a large factory and the local authority required Aor. 5 under the old regime, the exemption of Aor. 1 under the new regulation logically suggests that Aor. 5 should also be exempted. However, local authorities may hesitate to forego Aor. 5 requirements for such projects, given their linkage to permits issued under the old regulation.
Until any further clarification/guideline from a governmental authority is issued, developers of existing projects should consult with the responsible local authority to confirm whether Aor. 5 is still required or can be exempted under the new regulation.
Agencies Issue Four Proposals to Improve Endangered Species Regulations
On November 21, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services) published four proposed rules to amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementing regulations. These proposals would amend the Section 7 Consultation Regulations, Criteria for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, Protections for Threatened Species, and Exclusions from Critical Habitat Designation.
These proposals would amend regulations that were issued in 2024 and, in many cases, would reinstate language from the first Trump Administration’s 2019 regulations. Notably, the proposals would clarify the scope of agency review for ESA section 7 consultation, narrow the criteria for listing species and designating critical habitat, reestablish the practice of promulgating species-specific 4(d) rules for newly listed threatened species, and expand considerations for determining whether an area should be excluded from critical habitat designation. The Services will take public comment on each of the four rules for 30 days, through December 22, 2025. Overall, the proposed changes are expected to be favorable to regulated parties because they will reinstate key clarifications and limitations.
Section 7 Consultation Regulations
Under section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the Services to ensure federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats. ESA section 7 consultation is often a key hurdle to timely federal permitting of new infrastructure and development projects. The proposal would largely reinstate the 2019 regulations with a few additions. The Services propose to:
Reinstate the 2019 definition of “effects of the action,” which removes redundant language and references the proposed § 402.17 to confirm the proximate cause standard for evaluating whether a consequence is appropriately attributable to a proposed action.
Reinsert § 402.17, titled “Other Provisions,” to provide more clarity on “effects of the action” that are “reasonably certain to occur” and “caused by the proposed action.” Consistent with principles recognized in the Supreme Court’s recent NEPA decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Services propose to add language to confirm that the Services need not consider effects that the agency has no ability to prevent.
Modify the definition of “environmental baseline” to emphasize that the agency looks to the best available scientific information at the time of the proposed action to inform its understanding of the condition of the listed species or its designated critical habitat and make it clear that ongoing actions that the agency has no discretion to prevent are part of the environmental baseline.
Reinstate the 2019 definition of “reasonable and prudent measures” because the Services find that it is consistent with recent executive orders and caselaw.
Remove language that encouraged “offsetting” reasonable prudent measures (RPM) (i.e., measures intended to compensate for the impacts of incidental take on listed species).
Criteria for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat
Section 4 of the ESA outlines the process for listing endangered and threatened species, delisting species, and designating critical habitats. The Services propose to reinstate the relevant 2019 provisions, which recognized important limits for listing determinations. Specifically, the proposals would:
Clarify that “foreseeable future” under 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(d) extends only so far as the Services can both determine the future threats to species and species’ responses to those threats.
Remove extraneous language in the regulations, including examples of when a species should be removed from the lists of endangered or threatened species to clarify that the standard for delisting a species is the same as the standard for listing.
Clarify that designation of critical habitat may not be prudent where the threats to a species’ habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed by section 7 consultation.
Reestablish a stepwise approach to designation of unoccupied habitat whereby the Service can only consider designating unoccupied areas where it first determines that a designation limited to occupied areas would be “inadequate to ensure the conservation of species.”
Protections for Threatened Species (FWS only)
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue protective regulations pertaining to threatened species which, under the act, includes all the protections awarded to endangered species under ESA section 9. Previously, species listed as threatened by FWS automatically received the same protections as endangered species, absent a species-specific rule. This is known as the “blanket rule.” The FWS blanket rule was removed in 2019 and reinstated in 2024. The Services are proposing to remove the 4(d) blanket rule and reinstate a species-specific framework for threatened species protection. If finalized, the proposal would:
Remove the 2024 “blanket rule,” which automatically extended all of the section 9 protections to threatened species unless the Service issued a species-specific rule.
Require FWS to conduct species-specific determinations for newly listed threatened species. The proposal would not impact threatened species that are currently protected by the blanket rule unless they are reclassified in the future.
Add regulatory text at 50 C.F.R. § 17.71(d) to explain that whenever FWS proposes a species-specific rule, they will ensure that each rule includes necessary and advisable determination (including consideration of conservation and economic impacts) and will seek public comment on that determination.
Exclusions from Critical Habitat Designation (FWS only)
ESA section 4(b)(2) requires consideration of the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of designating any particular area as critical habitat. It also authorizes exclusion of areas from critical habitat if the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of designating as critical habitat and such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. The ESA affords the Services with broad discretion in deciding whether to exclude an area from critical habitat designation. FWS proposes to reinstate 50 C.F.R. § 17.90 pertaining to the impact analysis and exclusions from critical habitat. Notably, this proposal would:
Articulate when and how FWS will determine whether the benefits of excluding an area outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat.
Expand considerations of whether an area should be excluded from critical habitat status to include national security and “other relevant impacts” (g., public health and safety, community interests, and the environment).
Set out a mandatory requirement that the FWS consider the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impacts prior to designation.
ESA requirements can be key hurdles to timely federal permitting of mining, development, energy, and infrastructure projects. These proposed changes will likely improve the species listing, critical habitat designation, and consultation processes.
Connecticut DEEP Reissues Stormwater and Pretreatment General Permits
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has been busy reissuing its suite of general permits (GPs) for wastewater and stormwater discharges. In October, DEEP reissued the Commercial Stormwater General Permit, Industrial Stormwater General Permit, and Pretreatment General Permits for Significant Industrial Users and Non-Significant Industrial Users. Below are highlights of significant changes to each reissued GP, as well as important compliance deadlines and considerations for regulated entities.
1. The Commercial Stormwater General Permit (CSGP) covers commercial sites with 5 or more acres of contiguous impervious surface, including shopping centers, business parks, schools, retail complexes, car dealerships, and financial and health services with large campuses. The reissued CSGP includes the following notable changes:
Expanded Industry Coverage: The new CSGP uses an updated definition of “Commercial Activities” referencing Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and capturing a broader range of commercial activities than the previous permit. Businesses should review Appendix A of the CSGP to determine if their SIC/NAICS code is listed.
New Registration Requirements: Online registration through a yet-to-be-announced platform; $625 fee.
Stormwater Management Plan: Required for all registrants, with expanded control measures and annual analytical plus quarterly visual monitoring.
Other Updates: Updated control measure requirements including new measures on deicing practices, spill prevention and cleanup, and lawn and garden center Best Management Practices. New quarterly visual monitoring and annual analytical monitoring of 19 parameters to better assess water quality impacts.
Deadlines: Registration opens December 1, 2025. Existing permittees must register by April 1, 2026. Existing sites without permit coverage (not previously registered) must register by December 1, 2026. New sites must apply at least 60 days before beginning discharge.
Potential Compliance Traps: Many facilities not previously regulated (e.g., large retail, educational campuses) may now be required to register. Failure to review the new SIC/NAICS applicability could result in unintentional noncompliance.
2. The Industrial Stormwater General Permit(IGP) covers industrial facilities, as defined by SIC/NAICS codes in Appendix A to the IGP, that discharge stormwater to waters of the state. Industrial facilities should check their SIC/NAICS code against Appendix A to the IGP. The reissued IGP includes the following notable changes:
Alignment with EPA’s 2021 MSGP: Incorporates new “Resilience Measure” requirements in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) tracking the federal government’s Multi Sector General Permit.
Corrective Actions Framework: New requirements for documenting and implementing corrective actions.
Annual Reports: Now required each April for the prior calendar year.
Electronic Reporting: Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) must be submitted via NetDMR; online noncompliance reporting is now mandatory.
Registration Fees: $1,250 for larger companies; $625 for smaller companies, federal, state and municipal-operated industrial activities
Signage: Facilities must post a sign indicating permit coverage.
Deadlines: Registration opens November 1, 2025. Existing permittees must register by April 1, 2026. New sites must register at least 90 days before discharge.
Potential Compliance Traps: If stormwater contacts industrial materials, activities, or operations, it is likely that the facility needs coverage. If all industrial facilities are fully sheltered and qualify under related DEEP rules, such facilities may qualify for a No Exposure Certification. In addition, the expanded monitoring, reporting, and corrective action requirements are more rigorous. Facilities must update SWPPPs and ensure timely electronic submissions to avoid enforcement.
3. DEEP also reissued two Pretreatment General Permits for Significant Industrial Users (SIU GP) and Non-Significant Industrial Users (Non-SIU GP). The SIU GP covers indirect discharges from significant industrial users (SIUs), including metal finishing, process, and non-process wastewaters, as well as dewatering and remediation wastewaters to sanitary sewers. The Non-SIU GP covers non-significant industrial users (Non-SIUs) not subject to federal categorical standards. DEEP issued a Pretreatment Permit Decision Chart to aid entities in determining which pretreatment permit may be applicable. The reissued Pretreatment GPs include the following notable changes:
Updated Definitions: Flow thresholds now based on average monthly flow (≥25,000 gpd of all process wastewater for SIUs).
Expanded Coverage: Dewatering and remediation discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are now included in the SIU GP.
Application Fees: For SIU GP, between $1,000 and $6,250 depending on the discharge type. For the Non-SIU GP, there is no DEEP fee but the POTWs reserve the right to collect fees associated with initial submission of a Notification Form.
Effluent Limits: New limits for mercury, PFAS, pH, temperature, and PCBs. Facilities may need to invest in new treatment or monitoring technologies to meet these limits.
Streamlined Process: Certification of No Change is a registration option for existing permittees; Non-SIU GP registration is notification-only.
Deadlines: Registration opens December 1, 2025. Existing SIUs and Non-SIUs must register by March 1, 2026. New SIUs must register at least 180 days prior to discharge. New Non-SIUs must submit a Notification Form at least 60 days prior to discharge.
Potential Compliance Trap: The removal of Qualified Professional Engineer (QPE) and Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) certification requirements is intended to streamline the process, but new effluent limits (especially for PFAS and mercury) may require operational changes.
Important Considerations and Practical Tips
The reissued GPs bring significant changes and expanded coverage to stormwater and pretreatment permit requirements. Regulated entities should carefully review the reissued GPs to determine if their activities are subject to permitting registration and compliance requirements, including electronic registration, updated reporting requirements, application fees, and expanded monitoring, BMPs, and corrective action requirements. Facilities should review and update their plans (e.g., SWPPP, SMP, SPCP) and train staff accordingly. Existing permittees must pay close attention to registration deadlines to maintain interim coverage.
DEEP has also made it abundantly clear that, in an effort to increase permit processing timelines, incomplete applications will be rejected and a new application, with a new fee, will need to be submitted. DEEP has shared that the most common reasons for incomplete applications in the past were missing or improperly signed Registrant Certification and missing or incomplete sampling data.
EPA Proposes Modifications to PFAS Reporting Rule
Earlier this year, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it planned to move forward with implementing certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) regulations and to make modifications to several aspects of other PFAS rules. See alert (dated 7 May 2025). On 10 November 2025, the EPA announced a proposed rule that would add exemptions to the final rule related to PFAS reporting under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, published on 11 October 2023 (Proposed Rule). See alert (dated 30 January 2024) for details on the October 2023 rule. Comments on this new Proposed Rule are due by 29 December 2025.
The Proposed Rule adds several exemptions to the existing reporting requirements, which are intended to “maintain important reporting on PFAS, consistent with statutory requirements, while exempting reporting on activities about which manufacturers are least likely to know or reasonably ascertain.”1 Specifically, the Proposed Rule would exempt the following activities from PFAS reporting:
De Minimis Concentrations
This exemption would eliminate reporting requirements for PFAS in mixtures or articles when the PFAS concentration is under 0.1%.
Imported Articles
This exemption would eliminate reporting requirements for PFAS imported as part of an article from the reporting requirement. Using the definition in 40 CFR 704.3, the Proposed Rule defines articles as:
“a manufactured item (1) which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, (2) which has end-use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and (3) which has either no change of chemical composition during its end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial purpose separate from that of the article, and that result from a chemical reaction that occurs upon end use of other chemical substances, mixtures, or articles; except that fluids and particles are not considered articles regardless of shape or design.”
Byproducts, Impurities, and Non-Isolated Intermediates
This exemption would also eliminate reporting for PFASs manufactured as byproducts, impurities, or non-isolated intermediates, as each is defined by existing regulation:
Byproducts are “a chemical substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance(s) or mixture(s).”2
Impurities are chemical substances unintentionally present with another chemical substance.3 This unintentional presence distinguishes impurities from byproducts where the produced PFAS is an intended part of the manufacturing process. Unlike byproducts, impurities lack independent commercial purpose, and they are not manufactured for distribution.
Non-isolated intermediates are substances produced and contained within a closed system during the manufacture of another chemical substance. There is no effort to remove these substances from the system or to store, package, or transport them.4
Research and Development (R&D) Chemicals
The Proposed Rule would exempt PFAS manufactured or imported in small quantities for R&D purposes.5
In addition to these proposed exemptions, the Proposed Rule would again modify the submission deadline. Namely, the submission period would open 60 days after the final rule’s effective date and remain open for three months. This is now the third time the EPA has delayed the reporting deadline, which was originally set for May 2025, then January 2026, and most recently for October 2026. The Proposed Rule would eliminate the reporting deadline for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers since they would not be required to report under the “imported articles” exemption.
Additionally, the Proposed Rule seeks to clarify elements of the reporting format by eliminating OECD-harmonized template reporting for exposure-related information that is also reported in “fielded data elements.” The Proposed Rule would also update the category names for “specific consumer and commercial products” under 40 CFR 705.15(c)(4) and would revise the “product category code names associated with CC217 through CC221 and CC305” to better identify covered articles and materials.
Finally, in addition to seeking public comment on the proposed exemptions and modifications discussed herein, the EPA requests feedback on two specific questions:
Should EPA amend the scope of reportable chemicals?
Should EPA modify any assumptions or cost savings calculations in its Economic Analysis?6
The Proposed Rule can be found here.
1 prepubcopy_7902.3-01_fr_doc_esignature_admin_verified.pdf
2 40 CFR 704.3
3 40 CFR 704.3
4 40 CFR 704.3
5 The rule indicates that small quantities is to be understood as quantities “not greater than reasonably necessary for such purposes.” 40 CFR 704.3
6 EPA’s Economic Analysis seeks to estimate the potential economic cost to industry based on familiarization and compliance with Rule. See Proposed Rule Supplementary Information Section I(E).
Environmental Justice Update- December
In the past several months, environmental justice (EJ) has continued to evolve through a shifting balance of federal and state action. While federal agencies have scaled back EJ initiatives, states are increasingly stepping in to fill the gap–advancing new policies, legislation, and regulatory approaches aimed at integrating EJ considerations into environmental permitting and enforcement. In this edition of the Environmental Justice Update, we examine the latest key trends, policy initiatives, and legal developments reshaping the EJ landscape.
Federal
In June 2025, a coalition of almost two dozen nonprofits, tribes, and local governments sued the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for terminating over 400 grants under the Environmental and Climate Justice (ECJ) Block Grants program created under the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law No: 117-169) (IRA), arguing that the grant terminations were unlawful. The plaintiffs contended that the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, contravened the Presentment Clause and separation of powers, and disregarded Congress’ directive to fund the grants.
In July 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a multistate coalition of 20 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit. Among other points, the amicus brief argued that the termination of the program disproportionately harms marginalized and historically disadvantaged communities, undermining the core purpose of Congress’s instruction to EPA when it passed the IRA.
In a 29 August 2025 opinion, US District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, saying: “Put simply, I cannot order the Government to reinstate contracts and pay money due on them.” (emphasis in original). Pointing to decisions from earlier this year by the US Supreme Court pertaining to Department of Education grants and grants from the National Institute of Health, Judge Leon also dismissed the case, agreeing with EPA that the suit belonged before the US Court of Federal Claims.
The majority of plaintiffs appealed Judge Leon’s decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on 16 September 2025. Plaintiff’s emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal was denied as the court found “that harm to the plaintiffs if the grant funds were returned to the Treasury was not irreparable.”
As this legal dispute plays out, Congress’s rescission of all unobligated funding under the ECJ Block Grants program as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Public Law No.: 119-21), increases the potential difficulty plaintiffs may face in quickly reinstating their grants.
Multistate EJ Guidance
In response to the rollback of EJ under the Trump Administration earlier this year,1 many states have recommitted to EJ protections through a multistate EJ guidance. Specifically, in June 2025, a coalition of state attorney generals from 13 states2 issued the “Multi-State Guidance Affirming the Importance and Legality of Environmental Justice Initiatives.” This document aims to identify sources of legal support for state EJ laws and to provide assurances to stakeholders that EJ practices remain legal despite the Trump Administration’s efforts to curtail them.
The “Multi-State Guidance” challenges the Trump Administration’s labeling of EJ as “illegal discrimination,” locating support for EJ in a variety of federal statutes and the US Constitution. Specifically, the document finds key support in:
The US Constitution:
The Tenth Amendment: Granting states the power to pass laws that advance “Public health, safety, and welfare.”
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: Barring state and local governmental entities from discriminating based on race or sex.
The First Amendment: Barring the government from conditioning benefits on the waiver of free speech rights.
Civil rights statutes, including:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Preventing those receiving federal funds from discriminating based on race, color, and national origin.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972: Preventing federal funding recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability, age, or sex, respectively.
Title VIII of the Federal Fair Housing Act: Outlawing public or private discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin in activities related to housing.
Federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act’s requirement for public notice and public comment.
Nonprofit laws that prevent the revocation of 501(c)(3) status by presidential executive order or directive.
Treaty obligations to Native American tribes.
In addition to laying out what they see as the legal basis for EJ, and based on this analysis, the state attorneys general provide a “non-exhaustive [list of] examples of work that public entities, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, and businesses lawfully undertake to advance environmental justice.” These activities fall into several broad categories:
Education, technical assistance, and funding support
Public engagement and participation
Burden identification and analysis
Preventing and mitigating pollution exposures
Climate readiness and resilience
Enforcement and remedies
In sum, the multistate guidance seeks to offer stability and assurance to stakeholders by providing clarity on the EJ strategies and resources that remain available to communities in the wake of the federal repeal of EJ initiatives.
Alaska
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the Republican reconciliation effort passed in July 2025, has impacted US energy and natural resource development across states and industries. Alaska is one state in particular that is positioned to experience a significant change in energy policy as a result of OBBBA. Two key OBBBA provisions—mandatory lease sales in Alaska and an adjustment of revenue sharing rates—have drawn attention from Alaska’s tribal communities, both for their potential to stimulate economic development and for the increased risk of negative environmental impacts that development could bring.
Specifically, OBBBA directs the secretary of the interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in certain sections of Alaskan land over the next 10 years, repealing the Biden Administration’s limitation on oil and gas leasing on millions of acres in Alaska and restoring leasing policies established under the first Trump Administration. In addition, OBBBA provides an adjustment of future revenue splits from oil and gas royalties between Alaska and the federal government. This change will result in additional revenue to the Alaska Permanent Fund, which provides cash dividends directly to Alaska residents, along with state and local governments and support services.
Responses to the changes in OBBBA from Native American organizations in Alaska have been mixed. Some Native American groups have shared their appreciation for the OBBBA’s reversal of Biden administration land policies, stating that the previous administration ignored “Alaska Native self-determination” by withdrawing millions of acres of Alaskan land from development and eliminating avenues of Tribal tax revenue. Other Tribal organizations in Alaska opposed OBBBA and have expressed serious concerns that the “aggressive” oil, gas, and coal development directed in the bill puts “ecologically sensitive and culturally significant” lands at risk. Tribal groups have argued that increased carbon emissions from new oil and gas developments, combined with local pollution from energy infrastructure, will exacerbate the already-significant environmental risks.
California
Earlier this year, the state of California filed a lawsuit against the city of Tulare, a small city south of Fresno, for alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The suit, filed in January by Attorney General Rob Bonta, claims that Tulare improperly approved a zoning ordinance that allows the development of cold-storage facilities in light and heavy industrial zones. Tulare approved the zoning ordinance in 2024 without conducting an environmental review under CEQA, claiming that the ordinance was exempt from the law’s requirements. Bonta’s suit argues that these cold-storage facilities could pose increased “air pollution and cancer risks” in “a previously racially-segregated community that is now one of the most pollution-burdened and disadvantaged communities in the State.” The case was disposed on 29 April 2025. Notwithstanding, the litigation highlights the state’s efforts to put pressure on a local government to fulfill its legal obligations to mitigate potential environmental harms to residents.
Colorado
This summer, Colorado’s Environmental Justice Action Task Force (Task Force) sought nominations for communities facing environmental inequities to analyze and improve health impacts. The Task Force was originally created on 2 July 2021 with the passing of HB21-1266. Housed in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), the main goal of the Task Force is to propose recommendations to the general assembly on how to address EJ inequalities, particularly in disproportionately impacted communities. On 14 November 2022, the Task Force published a final report detailing their work and findings over the previous year. In this report, the task force recommended that CDPHE develop a branch of the department to conduct environmental equity and cumulative impact analyses (EECIA) across the state. This recommendation led to the passing of HB24-1338 on 28 May 2024.
HB24-1338 created an Office of Environmental Justice (the Office) housed within CDPHE. This Office specifically oversees the development process of EECIAs in selected geographic areas of Colorado with the goal of understanding how environmental factors affect the health and well-being of Colorado residents. When selecting these areas, the Office must choose disproportionately impacted communities, particularly those affected by a heightened exposure to environmental contaminants. Other factors in this selection process include the proportion of low-income families, the percentage of people of color, and locations with a history of environmental racism. Once these areas are selected, the Office will partner with an academic institution or another third-party to develop an EECIA, which involves hiring a contractor to perform scientifically rigorous analyses recommended by the Task Force. Some of these recommendations include increasing oversight at petroleum refineries, improving the response of the Air Pollution Control Division to air pollution complaints, and analyzing the cumulative impacts of pollution in the air, water, and soil of these communities. Within nine months of completing the EECIA, CDPHE will prepare a report identifying its findings and recommending resources to address environmental inequities.
The impact of these EECIA analyses is intended to help direct funds and resources from the state level to the local level to address issues for communities most exposed to environmental stressors, such as pollution and extreme heat conditions.
Illinois
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) is drafting proposed statutory language to formally codify the agency’s EJ policy and associated environmental permitting review procedures. Illinois EPA is proposing to limit the enhanced permitting review process to census tracts scoring in the 25th percentile or higher based on certain environmental indicators, with the underlying data to be updated every three years.
At the same time, several proposed EJ bills have yet to pass, including SB1307 and SB1686, which propose to amend the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and the Illinois Environmental Justice Act respectively, and the bills remain in Assignments (Committee) after the first readings. Against this backdrop, the Illinois Pollution Control Board opened a docket for interested parties to submit proposals for procedural regulations to “provide guidance to the Board when considering EJ issues, including the selection of screening tools for identifying areas of EJ concern, in its proceedings.” Illinois EPA, the Illinois Attorney General and various environmental interest groups have submitted comments.
The proposed legislation follows a 24 March 2025 EPA announcement that Illinois EPA had satisfied its obligations under the February 2025 Informal Resolution Agreement, which was issued to resolve allegations that Illinois EPA engaged in discriminatory permitting processes. Under the Informal Resolution Agreement, Illinois EPA committed, among other objectives, to “implement[ ] enhancements to its permit review process” and “ensure [Illinois] EPA’s public involvement process will be available to all persons[.]”
Under the current EJ policy, permitting actions in “areas of EJ concern”—defined as “a census block group with a low-income and/or minority population greater than twice the statewide average”—are subject to stricter scrutiny and heightened public participation requirements. Illinois EPA currently utilizes a GIS mapping tool, known as EJ Start, to determine areas of EJ concern within the state.
Massachusetts
Enacted under Senate Bill 2521 in August 2024, the Environmental Justice Trust (Trust) was signed into Massachusetts’ state budget following a joint proposal by Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell, Representative Brandy Fluker-Oakley, and Senator Adam Gomez. Funded through civil penalties that are received in judgments and settlements from state cases involving the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Division, the Trust seeks to benefit community health by using these funds to address economic, environmental, and health-related burdens frequently faced by residents in disadvantaged communities. The Trust will help to address longstanding disparities in environmental health faced primarily by lower-income communities in Massachusetts.
The Trust is funded by the penalties accrued from cases against:
Companies that illegally emit or emit beyond permitted amounts, toxins and other pollutants into the air;
Contractors who expose employees to asbestos during demolitions;
Companies that discharge pollutants into local rivers and streams either illegally or beyond the scope of their permits; and
Entities that wrongfully destroy essential areas of wetland and green spaces that increase flood potential in surrounding communities.
The Trust allows monies to be directed at impacted communities to address financial burdens caused by violations, rather than the monies going into the commonwealth’s general fund. The money in the Trust will specifically be used to restore impacted natural resources, investigate environmental pollution or harm caused to local property, benefit the overall health of the affected community, and provide support to academic or government-funded research to further identify environmental protection and conservation measures in these areas.
On 27 January 2025, the AG’s Office announced that the first payments of a consent judgment against four companies, totaling US$155,000, would be placed into the Trust. More recently, on 8 September 2025, a local Massachusetts company reached an agreement with the AG’s Office for a settlement of US$300,000 in civil penalties, of which US$150,000 will be deposited into the Trust for a violation of the Massachusetts Clean Air Act and illegal asbestos removal. On 10 September 2025, the AG’s Office announced another settlement agreement with a Massachusetts based company for US$115,000 in penalties, with US$55,000 going into the Trust, for illegally handling, removing, and storing asbestos.
Maryland
On 17 July 2025, Governor Wes Moore signed the Valuing Opportunity, Inclusion, and Community Equity Executive Order (The VOICE Order). The VOICE Order, which went into effect immediately, creates the Interagency Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Council (the Council), which will strive to create a unified front among the state’s agencies to deal with the issue of environmental inequity. Made up of representatives from 14 state agencies appointed by the governor, the Council will coordinate state efforts, track relevant spending, and perform several other tasks to advise the agencies on advancing the governor’s EJ priorities. For example, the VOICE Order requires agencies to use Maryland’s EJ mapping tool, MDEnviroScreen, to “track and address disparities related to environmental hazards, exposures, risks, health outcomes, investments and benefits.”
Critically, the Council is tasked with developing enhanced public participation plans for communities with EJ concerns potentially affected by certain resource extraction, waste management, and industrial and manufacturing processes and activities. The Council will also provide technical assistance to localities in developing and implementing EJ programs and making concrete recommendations to the governor regarding how to best address disparate environmental health impacts caused by state action.
Michigan
On 1 July 2025 and 22 July 2025, Senate Bill 479 and House Bill 4742, entitled the “Protecting Overburdened Communities Act,” was introduced to amend Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) environmental permitting review process. The law would require EGLE to consider the cumulative impact of all pollutant types associated with a potential project. Additionally, the bill would require the agency to account for the greater risk of harm that social and economic factors have on communities. EGLE will use its EJ screening tool, MiEJScreen, to assess projects for environmental risk. If EGLE finds a negative impact on overburdened communities without a compelling need for the project, it has authority under the legislation to deny a permit application. Further, the policy requires permit applicants to give their community 60 days’ notice for a public hearing on the permit and prepare a project impact statement. Applicants must publish the information in at least two community newspapers, including a local non-English paper.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Tourism and the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment in July and has not progressed further as of the date of this publication.
New Jersey
On 8 October 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division held oral arguments on the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:1C (the Rules), which implement the Environmental Justice Law N.J.S.A. 13:1D-157 to -161 (the EJ Law).
Petitioners focused on aspects of the Rules that they argue go beyond the authority granted to NJDEP under the EJ Law, such as the Rules’ application to “zero population blocks”, and the Rules’ definitions for terms such as new facility, existing facility, expansion, and geographic point of comparison. Petitioners and amici further raised the lack of predictability that the Rules provide, particularly in terms of timing of the EJ process and NJDEP’s application of the EJ stressors, which petitioners noted were implemented in the EJMAP tool without being properly subject to administrative procedures.
In response, NJDEP argued that the department reasonably and permissibly filled in the gaps provided in the law using its expertise. NJDEP and its amici also argued that the Rules’ definitions meet the plain language test and are consistent with defined terms in other NJDEP regulatory programs. The court pressed NJDEP on a number of issues including the Rules’ threshold for measuring the contribution of adverse cumulative stressors, NJDEP’s development of its EJMAP, and the fact that the Rules do not factor economic considerations. The court has taken the matter under advisement for further consideration.
Conclusion
Our EJ Task Force continues to closely monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area, including the updates highlighted above. As the EJ focus continues to evolve, businesses—particularly those operating in overburdened communities—should remain vigilant and track policy shifts and enforcement trends at both the federal and state levels. Staying informed and proactive is essential to managing risk and aligning with emerging compliance expectations.
DPR Considering Changes to Enforcement Response Regulations
On November 13, 2025, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) held a webinar to discuss potential changes to its Enforcement Response Regulations set forth at 3 C.C.R. Sections 6128 and 6130. DPR also released its Discussion Document explaining the various regulatory “concepts” it is considering and posing questions for public input related to those concepts.
The proposed focus areas are designed to address areas of improvement identified in a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) audit conducted in 2023, improve statewide consistency, and clarify elements of enforcement processes. The four areas are:
1. Consistently align penalties with the nature of violations. Currently, the regulations classify violations into three categories — Class A, B, and C — based on the severity and nature of the violation. DPR is considering regulatory approaches to align penalties consistently with the nature of violations, including refining the criteria for Class A, B and C violations, or considering whether additional categories are needed. Among other questions, DPR is seeking input on how “harm” should be defined and what changes should be made for the degree of potential harm and/or actual harm.
2. Increase minimum fine levels. While maximum fines have been updated, minimum fines have not changed since 2002. DPR proposes raising minimum fine levels to better reflect the seriousness of violations, narrowing the currently large fine ranges to support consistency in fine and penalty amounts across counties.
3. Improve statewide consistency in fine amounts. DPR states that a key recommendation from the 2023 EPA audit is to improve consistency in how fines are applied across counties. Currently, County Agricultural Commissioners (CAC) consider county compliance history when determining penalties, but DPR is now considering requiring CACs to consider statewide compliance history when imposing enforcement actions for Class A violations.
4. General process improvements. DPR is considering several updates to streamline and strengthen enforcement processes, including updating its processes for notification and referrals to District Attorneys, City Attorneys, or Circuit Prosecutors, requiring review of notices of proposed action from reportable investigations, requiring DPR referrals for multi-jurisdictional reportable incidents (per AB 2113), and clarifying timelines and expectations for reviewing CAC decision reports.
Comments are due by December 13, 2025. A formal regulatory process is expected to be initiated in 2026.
Claim Construction: Indefinite or Clerical Error?
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the “very demanding standard” of judicial correction of erroneous wording of a patent claim.
Background
Canatex Completion Solutions owns U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122. This patent covers a releasable connection device for a downhole tool string used during downhole operations in oil and gas wells. The device has two parts locked together. In circumstances where the further downhole (first) part of the device has gotten stuck, the operator can disconnect the two parts of the device, leaving the further downhole (first) part in the well while pulling the upper (second) part to the surface.
Canatex accused Wellmatics, LLC, GR Energy Services, LLC, GR Energy Services Management, LP, GR Energy Services Operating GP, LLC, and GR Wireline, L.P. (collectively, “Defendants”) of infringing the ’122 patent in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In response, Defendants challenged the ’122 patent’s validity. The claimed phrase at issue was “the connection profile of the second part.” Defendants argued the claims that included this phrase were indefinite for lack of an antecedent basis, while Canatex argued the phrase contains an evident error and that the intended meaning was “the connection profile of the first part.”
The district court agreed with Defendants that the claims were indefinite, ruling that “the error” identified by Canatex “is not evident from the face of the patent and the correction to the claim is not as simple as [Canatex] makes it seem.” In fact, the court ruled this “error” “was an intentional drafting choice and not an error at all.” The court further concluded that Canatex’s failure to seek correction from the USPTO pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 255, which expressly permits the USPTO to correct certain clerical, typographical, and minor errors, suggested that the error is neither minor nor evident on the face of the patent.
Canatex appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging as legally erroneous the district court’s determinations that (i) no error in the claim phrase at issue was evident on its face of the patent and (ii) there was no unique evident correction.
Issues
Whether it is evident on the face of the ’122 patent that the claim language at issue contains an error.
Whether Canatex’s correction of “second” to “first” is the unique correction that captures the claim scope a reasonable relevant reader would understand was meant based on the claim language and specification.
Holdings
Yes. It is evident on the face of the ’122 patent that the claim language at issue contains an error.
Yes. The correction of “second” to “first” is the unique correction that captures the claim scope a reasonable relevant reader would understand was meant based on the claim language and specification.
Reasoning
Error evident on the face of the ’122 patent. The Federal Circuit reasoned that a relevant artisan would immediately see that, as written, there is an error in the claim. The phrase at issue plainly requires an antecedent (“the connection profile of the second part”), but no “connection profile of the second part” is previously recited in the claim. In addition, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the reference to a nowhere-identified “connection profile of the second part” “makes no sense” given the claim language. Further, the Federal Circuit reasoned this error was evident in view of the patent specification. Regarding Canatex’s failure to seek correction from the USPTO, the Federal Circuit distinguished between a correction made by the PTO under § 255, which is only made as prospective (i.e., going forwards), and a judicial correction, which determines the meaning the claim has always had.
The unique correction. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the only reasonable correction was to change “second” to “first” in the claim language. This was what the claim language as a whole required. Further, the specification showed that the patentee plainly meant the connection profile of the first part. Nothing in the prosecution history suggested otherwise. The Federal Circuit rejected Defendants’ arguments that there are other reasonable corrections, reasoning that Defendants’ alternative corrections were either unavailing or inconsistent with the claim’s meaning.
Conclusion
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The Federal Circuit concluded that it is evident the claim contains an error and that a relevant artisan would recognize that there is only one correction that is reasonable given the intrinsic evidence. Although the Federal Circuit recognized a judicial correction to claim language in this case, this opinion nevertheless highlights “the very demanding standards for judicial correction of a claim term” and that such corrections are only “proper in narrow circumstances.”
California DPR Announces Planned Changes to Pesticide Enforcement Response Regulations
Key Takeaways
What Happened: On November 13, 2025, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) held a webinar explaining planned changes to DPR’s Enforcement Response Regulations at 3 CCR §§ 6128 and 6130.
Who’s Impacted: Pesticide industry stakeholders in California, including product registrants and users.
What Companies Should Consider Doing in Response: Understand the proposed updates and consider submitting comments before the December 13, 2025 deadline. There will also be a future opportunity to submit comments in connection with DPR’s formal rulemaking next year.
Background
DPR is responsible for overall statewide enforcement of California’s pesticide laws and oversees counties’ enforcement programs to provide consistent enforcement throughout the state. DPR’s Enforcement Response Regulations (ER Regulations) direct County Agricultural Commissions (CACs) to assess administrative civil penalties for local agricultural or structural pesticide use violations. DPR increased maximum fines for certain use violations last year to align with earlier statutory changes that increased civil penalties in the Food and Agriculture Code (FAC), but DPR has not comprehensively updated the ER Regulations since 2007.
As described in DPR’s November 13 webinar and a related Discussion Document, the Department is currently considering updates to its ER Regulations in four key areas: (1) alignment of penalties with the nature of violations; (2) adjusting minimum fine levels; (3) improving statewide consistency in fine amounts; and (4) general process improvements. DPR anticipates initiating formal rulemaking for the proposed changes in the second quarter of 2026, and DPR is now accepting initial public comments on these concepts through December 13, 2025.
Current Regulations in Effect
DPR’s current regulations outline a step-by-step process for CACs to first classify pesticide use violations as Class A, B, or C, and then determine an appropriate enforcement response. Based on the class of violation, the CAC will respond using the enforcement criteria described under 3 CCR § 6128.
Under the current framework, a Class A violation is one that caused a health, property, or environmental hazard (for example, pesticide drift onto a non-target crop or an employee becoming ill due to lack of personal protective equipment). Enforcement responses may involve formal referral or enforcement action, with a potential fine range of $700 to $15,000.
Class B violations are those that did not cause harm but involved a law or regulation that mitigates risk (for example, failure to wear personal protective equipment). Enforcement responses may involve formal referral, enforcement action, or compliance action with a decision report, and an associated potential fine range of $250 to $3,000.
Finally, Class C violations are those that do not involve a law or regulation that mitigates risk (for example, late submission of pesticide use reports). Enforcement responses may involve enforcement or compliance action, and a potential fine range of $50 to $400.
When determining the fine amount within the range, CACs must consider the severity of the violation’s actual or potential effects and the respondent’s compliance history.
Proposed Future Changes
DPR anticipates proposing changes in four focus areas.
First, DPR anticipates proposing to more consistently align penalties with the nature of use violations. This change could potentially include refining the criteria for violation classes and/or replacing or adding class categories. For Class A violations, DPR anticipates proposing to define the criteria based on actual impact and harm. For Class C violations, DPR also plans to define the applicable criteria. DPR may also consider adding categories of violations.
Second, DPR anticipates proposing adjustments to the minimum fine levels. According to DPR, it has not changed the minimum fine levels since 2002. DPR’s proposed changes under this focus area include raising the minimum fines for Class A and B violations.
Third, DPR anticipates proposing requirements that increase statewide consistency in penalty amounts. This change could potentially include a requirement for CACs to consider statewide compliance history in addition to county compliance history when enforcing Class A violations. It could also include requiring CACs to justify a selected fine amount in proposed action notices.
Finally, DPR anticipates various other general process improvements. These changes could potentially include an updated notification and referral process to District Attorneys, City Attorneys, and/or Circuit Prosecutors. It could also include a required review of reportable investigation notices of proposed actions, mandatory DPR referrals for multi-jurisdictional reportable incidents, and clarified timelines and expectations for reviewing CAC decision reports.
Public Comment and Next Steps
DPR is currently accepting public comments on these initial concepts through December 13, 2025. Stakeholders and other interested members of the public may submit comments online at DPR’s Enforcement Response Regulations, or via email to [email protected].
DPR expects to promulgate a formal notice of proposed rulemaking in the second quarter of 2026, at which time there will be additional opportunity for public comment.
Texas’ CCS Landscape Shifts with Class VI Primacy and Clearer Pore-Space Ownership Rules
On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) primacy over the Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, authorizing Texas to assume primary permitting and enforcement authority for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. With this decision, Texas joins Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming as one of the few states administering its own UIC Class VI permitting program.
Understanding Class VI WellsClass VI wells, which are used for long-term geological sequestration of CO2, are among the most highly regulated injection well categories. Federal UIC regulations require detailed geologic characterization, plume-migration modeling, rigorous construction and monitoring standards, and long-term post-injection site management. Until now, EPA has served as the exclusive permitting authority for CCS projects in Texas, a process often criticized for lengthy review times and administrative uncertainty.
With primacy, day-to-day permitting authority shifts to the RRC, while EPA maintains supervisory authority over the state’s implementation of the program. For CCS developers, the transition is expected to provide greater predictability and regulatory efficiency, particularly given the RRC’s longstanding experience regulating Class I and Class II injection wells and its familiarity with Texas’ geologic conditions. Combined with the state’s abundant saline formations and proximity to major CO2 sources, RRC primacy further positions Texas as a leading jurisdiction for CCS development and investment.
Clarifying Pore Space OwnershipPermitting, however, is only one component of the legal framework surrounding CCS projects. Recent judicial decisions and legislative developments have helped clarify that subsurface “pore space”—the voids within underground formations used for CO2 storage—is generally owned by the surface estate unless expressly conveyed. Mineral ownership alone does not include the right to store CO₂ or other injected substances, and pore-space rights may be leased or conveyed separately from mineral interests.
While this clarity provides a more predictable foundation for project development, it also underscores the need for careful title review. Developers must determine whether pore-space rights have been severed from the surface estate, whether earlier conveyances restrict the use of formations for storage, and whether existing mineral leases contain provisions that may conflict with sequestration activities. For surface owners, clarified pore-space ownership may create opportunities to participate in CCS projects through easements or leases, though such agreements involve long-term operational considerations, potential interactions with mineral development, and careful allocation of post-closure responsibilities.
ConclusionTexas’ assumption of Class VI primacy offers increased regulatory certainty and alignment with an agency already deeply experienced in injection-well oversight, while legal clarity around pore-space ownership provides a more stable foundation for negotiating and securing storage rights. Together, these developments create a clearer pathway for CCS project development, but they also highlight the importance of a disciplined permitting strategy, robust title analysis, and carefully structured agreements. As Texas begins implementing its Class VI program—and as early RRC guidance and permitting decisions appear—both developers and landowners will benefit from proactive legal planning and attention to developing regulatory requirements.
The Ambler Road Project- New EB-2 NIW Opportunities for Mining Engineers, Metallurgists, and Construction Professionals
The recent approval of Alaska’s Ambler Road Project marks a pivotal moment for U.S. infrastructure, energy policy, and skilled immigration. By reinforcing America’s commitment to energy independence and unlocking access to vast mineral reserves, the project highlights a growing demand for expertise in engineering, mining, logistics, and environmental management.
For professionals pursuing EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) and EB-1A visas, this development provides direct policy alignment with national priorities, creating clear pathways for petitioners whose work advances the United States’ goals of sustainability, innovation, and resource security.
What is the Ambler Road Project?
Trump Authorizes Progress on Ambler Road
When President Donald Trump signed the order approving Alaska’s Ambler Road Project on October 6, 2025, he called it “an economic gold mine” and “a very big deal from the standpoint of minerals and energy.”
The Ambler Road Project proposed a 211-mile road connecting Dalton Highway to Alaska’s remote Ambler Mining District, opening road access to one of the state’s most resource-rich regions. The President’s authorization for the project represents a key step in broader federal efforts to unlock the United States’ mineral potential and advance the Administration’s energy dominance agenda.
Once stalled, the project will enable access to more than 1,700 active mining claims containing vast deposits of critical minerals, including copper, silver, gold, lead, cobalt, and other strategic metals. The project will necessitate the construction of the road and expand mining exploration and development capabilities.
Where Opportunity Expands: The New Demand for Skilled Talent
The Ambler Road Project represents a rare intersection of engineering ambition, industrial necessity, and national policy. Its scope goes beyond Alaska’s borders, highlighting America’s intention to rebuild its capacity to source and process critical minerals domestically.
The renewed focus on mineral independence naturally increases the need for specialized talent. Therefore, mining engineers, metallurgists, and supply-chain professionals will all play essential roles in this transformation. Building a road through Arctic terrain requires advanced geotechnical and civil expertise. Operating the mines will need metallurgical innovation and logistical precision. Supporting industries from equipment manufacturing to environmental protection will need scientists and specialists who can make these operations safer, more efficient, and more sustainable.
Across the country, similar sectors already face labor shortages. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects steady demand growth for engineers and materials scientists throughout the decade, while the energy transition creates new categories of technical work. The Ambler Project reinforces that trajectory by adding thousands of direct and indirect jobs in mining, infrastructure, and logistics.
Notably, for immigrant professionals, this is an encouraging signal. The U.S. continues to rely on global expertise to bridge workforce gaps in highly specialized fields. As projects like Ambler scale up, the need for advanced skills and the visas that enable them becomes increasingly evident.
Strengthening EB-2 NIW and EB-1A Petitions in 2025
As federal policy prioritizes infrastructure and mineral security, immigration strategies must evolve alongside it. The policy climate surrounding critical minerals can give immigration applicants tangible ways to frame their petitions. We do this by grounding every petition in current U.S. policy trends and aligning each client’s record with measurable national objectives.
How The Ambler Road Project Strengthens the EB-2 NIW Framework:
1. Prong 1: Substantial Merit and National Importance
Professionals in critical minerals and related fields such as mine planning, metallurgical engineering, control systems engineering, logistics, and supply chain can now link their work directly to the U.S. goal of reducing dependence on imported minerals and reinforcing energy dominance.
2. Prong 2: Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
This prong focuses on the petitioner’s capability. Petitioners should provide clear evidence of past results such as successful mine designs, innovative metallurgical processes, or risk-management systems adopted in industrial settings.
3. Prong 3: Benefit to the United States on Balance
This allows applicants to emphasize urgency. Skilled labor shortages, remote-site challenges, and technological demands justify the need to waive the job-offer requirement. When evidence demonstrates that the petitioner’s presence accelerates a project vital to U.S. economic security, the argument for national benefit becomes more compelling.
How The Ambler Road Project Strengthens the EB-1A Pathway
For EB-1A candidates, sustained acclaim remains on the benchmark. Engineers, metallurgists, and environmental specialists can point to patents, published research, or leadership roles that led to measurable industry outcomes like improved efficiency, safer extraction, or stronger compliance standards. In addition, recognition by peers or independent media further supports the case.
At Colombo & Hurd, we work closely with our clients to craft petitions that connect these accomplishments to national objectives. Rather than simply listing credentials, we craft a narrative that demonstrates why each professional’s work matters to the United States.
In either category, petitioners benefit from aligning their evidence with the broader U.S. agenda. When your work develops domestic resources, protects natural assets, or modernizes infrastructure, it naturally aligns with the national priorities now shaping immigration policy.
Looking Ahead: Making the Most of a Defining Moment
As the Ambler Road project moves from approval to implementation, it reflects a national mindset that values technical ability, innovation, and practical problem-solving. For professionals in critical minerals and related fields, there is an opportunity and need for expertise that strengthens the federal agenda toward energy security.
Professionals should define their endeavors in clear terms that align with the federal priorities. A metallurgist might describe how their techniques can increase domestic yield from existing ore bodies. Similarly, a civil engineer might outline how their designs mitigate negative impact on future yields while expanding infrastructure access.
Each narrative should tie directly to the goals highlighted by the Ambler initiative: secure resources, strengthen industry, and promote responsible stewardship of natural resources.
Strong documentation remains key. Project records, design reports, patents, and letters from industry leaders help establish authority and contribution. For environmental energy professionals, showing how natural resources protection ensures long-term productivity strengthens the case.
Projects like the Ambler Road remind us that U.S. policy and innovation rely on the professionals who make them possible. As the U.S. accelerates projects that enhance energy security and resource independence, the need for global talent will grow. Immigrant professionals who align their work with these priorities will find meaningful opportunities and stronger grounds for their immigration petitions.
EPA, NGOs Continue Aggressive TSCA Enforcement with a Focus on Chemical Reporting Violations
Despite broad shifts in enforcement priorities across the federal government, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to pursue aggressive enforcement of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) violations. Actions taken by EPA in 2025 to date demonstrate sustained TSCA enforcement, including with respect to chemical regulations and particularly chemical data reporting requirements. Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also utilizing TSCA’s Section 20 citizen suit authority to bring lawsuits against companies over alleged reporting noncompliance as well. Chemical manufacturers and importers should stay apprised of these enforcement trends and proactively manage their TSCA compliance strategies to reduce enforcement and litigation risk.
EPA Enforcement in 2025
While the government has scaled back civil environmental enforcement in federal court, EPA’s administrative enforcement remains robust and appears to be accelerating. In the third quarter of calendar year 2025, EPA resolved 198 administrative enforcement actions across the statutes it administers—up from 179 case conclusions in the second quarter—and has assessed over $9 million in penalties. Although many of these cases likely were initiated during the prior administration, the continued settlement approvals reflect EPA’s focus on “core” enforcement work under the current administration.
EPA’s TSCA enforcement and compliance assurance program includes four key focus areas: new and existing chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and lead-based paint. From time to time, aspects of the TSCA enforcement program have been included amongst EPA’s national focus areas, as reflected in the National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives that EPA selects on four-year cycles. TSCA enforcement largely is, however, part of “core” enforcement work, which Administrator Zeldin has made a priority for the agency.
Since the beginning of the current administration, EPA has pursued 115 new administrative enforcement actions and assessed approximately $4.3 million in penalties for TSCA violations. The vast majority of these cases (about 80 percent) concern lead-based paint regulation noncompliance, which have generally resulted in lower penalty assessments than chemicals enforcement actions. Of the ten largest TSCA penalties assessed this year to date, five were for chemicals enforcement actions. For example, the agency assessed its single largest TSCA penalty in 2025—$700,000—for violations of the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, where the respondent allegedly failed to report 334 imported chemicals for the 2024 reporting cycle. EPA assessed six‑figure penalties in three other CDR rule enforcement actions—$415,000, $393,000, and $112,155—as well as a $100,000 penalty for alleged violations of the methylene chloride risk management rule for paint removers.
NGO Lawsuits to Enforce TSCA CDR Violations
TSCA Section 20 also gives private citizens the authority to bring civil actions against companies in federal court for TSCA violations. TSCA allows private citizens to bring such suits so that a court can restrain the identified TSCA violations or compel EPA to enforce the law. Since 2021, NGOs have filed TSCA Section 20 actions against companies for alleged CDR violations and continue to do so with growing frequency. Two of the most recent lawsuits were filed earlier this fall by the NGO Center for Environmental Health (CEH). CEH alleged that certain chemical companies failed to report imported chemicals to EPA for the 2020 CDR reporting cycle.
The complaints in these cases detail how the NGOs identify potential violations by reviewing information on company imports and manufactured chemicals published in EPA’s CDR public database. NGOs have also asked the courts in these cases to 1) declare the companies violated TSCA, 2) order the companies to file corrected CDR reports with EPA, 3) restrain the companies from ongoing CDR violations, 4) order that the companies audit their manufacturing and import activities to identify other potential CDR violations, and 5) pay the NGO’s attorneys’ fees. Even when penalties are not imposed, responding to TSCA Section 20 claims can be costly and require the diversion of resources away from other business functions.
Companies should be aware of these types of civil actions because they can open the door to NGOs or other private citizens to pressure companies, as part of settlements, to agree to allow them to participate in company-led TSCA CDR (or broader) audits, which could potentially reveal additional TSCA violations.
What Companies Should Do
EPA administrative enforcement and citizen-filed lawsuits represent two significant legal risks for chemical manufacturers and importers subject to TSCA CDR rule requirements. Noncompliance can result in not only steep penalties but also business operational disruption. On the front end, manufacturers and importers should routinely review their own TSCA compliance programs and audit their own TSCA reporting compliance, which can also position companies to take advantage of EPA’s Audit Policy[1] where its conditions are met, potentially mitigating penalties for voluntarily disclosed noncompliance. Companies should also proactively prepare for the next CDR reporting cycle in 2028. Companies should also engage counsel early when responding to EPA inquiries or enforcement activity or notice of citizen lawsuits.
[1] U.S. EPA, “Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations,” 65 Fed. Reg. 19,618 (Apr. 11, 2000).