The IRA is the latest step in pursuing the Biden Administration's environmental justice goals and it continues to push them forward by funding a variety of projects. The IRA would inject billions of dollars in funding into environmental justice initiatives and, according to Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.), represent "…the most significant investment in environmental justice and climate action in American history." President Biden said that it would make a "real" investment into environmental justice and many environmental groups have rushed to support the bill calling it "an incredible breakthrough."
If passed the IRA would provide major incentives to produce clean energy and reduce pollution in low-income and disadvantaged communities.该法案提供高达3.6千兆瓦的太阳能和风能减税,足以为低收入社区数以百万计的家庭提供电源该法案还分配47.5亿美元给各州减少温室气体排放,重点是弱势社区。该法案还将向全美部落社区分配数亿元。
disadtage社区也将从30多亿美元联邦公路局获得资金获益,用于改善交通接入、重连低收入区到邻接并减少交通枢纽负面影响等项目。 IRA第60501段还将向社区非盈利组织提供30亿美元,以减少污染、解决有毒污染问题、监控局部污染水平并投资环境恢复能力项目IRA第60201条The Department of Housing and Urban Development would also receive $1 billion to improve the climate resilience and electrification projects in public housing. IRA § 30002.Multiple e-NGOs have urged passage of the IRA and highlighted the contributions it will make to environmental justice. For example, The Sierra Club's statement identifies multiple areas of environmental justice impact that will stem from passage of the IRA. Similarly, WE ACT's statement of support noted, "We acknowledge Members of Congress for returning to the negotiating table and producing an inflation reduction package that has billions of environmental justice funding that can deliver the once-in-a-generation investments needed to make communities of color and areas of low income healthier, cleaner, and economically viable."
Background
QFs receive regulatory relief, such as exemptions from the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 and from certain provisions of the Federal Power Act, and in some instances utilities are obligated to purchase their power.
Under PURPA, FERC may certify as QFs cogeneration facilities that meet certain criteria. FERC's rules define a cogeneration QF as a facility that "produces electric energy as well as steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes." The rules limit a cogeneration QF's "useful thermal energy output" to thermal energy that is (1)"made available to an industrial or commercial process;" (2) "used in a heating application;" or (3) "used in a space cooling application."
Bloom Energy Corporation petitioned FERC to add a fourth use to the definition of "useful thermal energy output" to clarify that the thermal energy produced by solid oxide fuel cell ("SOFC") systems with integrated natural gas reformation equipment that is used to produce additional electricity is useful thermal energy.Bloom stated that without this addition, most SOFC facilities would not be able to qualify as a QF cogenerator because FERC precedent requires the use of thermal energy to be completely independent of the power production process. However, the SOFC system uses the thermal energy output in the fuel cell conversion process to produce more electricity.
As reported in this blog, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that proposed to add as a fourth acceptable use of thermal energy the thermal energy "used by a solid oxide fuel cell system with an integrated steam hydrocarbon reformation process for production of fuel for electricity generation."
The new rule
FERC's new rule adds a fourth acceptable use for the thermal energy produced by a fuel cell with integrated hydrocarbon reformation equipment, but, in response to a comment, does not limit that use to solid oxide fuel cell systems. FERC noted that "the focus should be on the integrated use of waste heat for reforming hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen to fuel a fuel cell, instead of the specific fuel cell technology utilized to accomplish that goal (i.e., solid oxide or carbonate)." Accordingly, FERC's new rule modifies the NOPR's description of the type of fuel cell that would qualify for QF status. Under the final rule, the fourth acceptable useful thermal energy output of a topping-cycle cogenerator is that "used by a fuel cell system with an integrated steam hydrocarbon reformation process for production of fuel for electricity generation."
FERC finds that a fuel cell with integrated hydrocarbon reformation equipment fits within the PURPA definition of a cogenerator because it produces two forms of useful energy: electric energy and heat/steam (thermal energy) which can be used to produce hydrogen from which chemical energy can be used to produce electric energy.
In some instances, QFs can require utilities to purchase their output. To qualify for this benefit, PURPA requires that a cogenerator QFs output "is used fundamentally for industrial, commercial, residential or institutional purposes and is not intended fundamentally for sale to an electric utility." FERC's order here states that these requirements apply to fuel cell systems subject to the new rule.
The new rule will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
联合王国政府目前正在就潜在法律进行磋商。英国政府期望该法将特别影响超市和时装厂、肉和奶制品生产者和企业使用棕榈油和其他自然成份并提议立法可能为企业提供法律确定性和清晰义务。
联合王国政府拟议立法力求查禁非法砍伐森林和生态系统变化并补充生产国政府和企业当前举措联合王国政府在公告中强调森林保护在应对气候变化方面的重要性,并特别指出:
- deferation占全球温室气体排放量的11%;
- 估计80%森林砍伐由农产品生产产生并 大森林清除生产这些商品不被视为合法 。
博客文章中, 我们考虑拟议立法的范围和范围对企业内可能意味着什么, 并提供广义GRI建议和国际可持续性尽职驱动程序上的一些上下文.
建议目前侧重于大型企业,视营业量和雇员数而定。根据国际和国家会计法,法律可能遵循欧盟和联合王国将大型企业界定为非中小企业的其他环境与可持续性举措政府预期超市和时装厂最有可能受拟议立法的影响,此外还有“公司将农林产品或衍生产品投放英国市场”。确定哪些企业属于类似勤勉报告框架范围证明对许多企业来说复杂化,特别是那些公司结构复杂并正在扩展的企业。
政府打算确保立法增强并符合现有的英国非金融公司报表和尽职框架不遵守制裁仍有待确定,但当前高层次建议显示政府将能够对继续使用未合法生产/或未建立强力尽职体系的森林风险商品的企业课以罚款和其他民事制裁。
关键建议之一是引入强制克尽职责要求GRI建议中一些重要范围界定方面包括:
- 应有的注意义务应同时涵盖侵犯人权和环境风险和影响,这些风险和影响需要仔细和清晰地定义and
- obligations for companies should be commensurate with the size of the organisation, their impact and ability to influence change;
- the financial sector should also be covered by a similar mandatory due diligence obligation, undertaking due diligence in order to avoid their lending and investment activities funding deforestation.
The extent to which any eventual legislation will incorporate these suggestions is currently unclear.
The GRI also recommended the introduction of a legally binding target to end deforestation within UK agriculture and forestry supply chains as soon as practicable, by no later than 2030.
Next steps: consultation
The UK Government — in particular, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("Defra") — has launched an online consultation on the draft legislation to solicit views from the UK and international stakeholders (closing on 5 October 2020).Feedback to the consultation will inform the Government's response to the GRI's due diligence recommendation, and assist in weighing the potential impacts of the proposed legislation on businesses and other interests.
If the Government decides to legislate, the intention currently seems to be to that the legal framework will be established in primary legislation, followed by more detailed secondary legislation, and subject to further consultation.
Wider context: the proliferation of due diligence obligations
Following the UN's adoption of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights ("UNGPs"), there has been an increasing trend of national and regional regulatory initiatives, including human rights and environmental due diligence and reporting requirements.
One such significant initiative is in motion an at EU level.On 29 April 2020, the EU announced that it would introduce legislation in 2021 to make human rights and environmental due diligence mandatory for EU companies (see our May 2020 blog post here).欧洲议会目前正在编写关于这个问题的立法倡议报告,我们期望委员会在今后数月内进行协商。欧盟司法和消费者事务专员最近确认,委员会将将该条例列入2021年委员会下一个正式工作方案(预期于2020年10月发布)。These efforts are taking place in the context of the EU's wide suite of regulatory initiatives that are part of the "European Green Deal" (see an overview webinar here).
The UK Government considers that by introducing a mandatory deforestation and ecosystem supply chain law, it will provide businesses with some legal certainty by setting a "floor" and minimum standards to meet. However, against a backdrop of a rapidly evolving patchwork of due diligence requirements — including the more comprehensive, potential EU human rights and environmental due diligence regulation — it is possible that, for in-scope businesses, the UK's introduction of further issue-specific due diligence obligations will exasperate the compliance challenges caused by a piecemeal approach.
The California Air Resources Board unanimously adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which is designed to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission medium and heavy duty vehicles ("ZEV"). By 2045, 100% of new trucks sold in the state will be ZEVs, consistent with the state's broader goal of becoming carbon neutral by that year.
The rule's main component is a ZEV sales quota. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines will be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales:
| Model Year | Class 2b-3 | Class 4-8 | Class 7-8 Tractors |
| 2024 | 5 | 9 | 5 |
| 2025 | 7 | 11 | 7 |
| 2026 | 10 | 13 | 10 |
| 2027 | 15 | 20 | 15 |
| 2028 | 20 | 30 | 20 |
| 2029 | 25 | 40 | 25 |
| 2030 | 30 | 50 | 30 |
| 2031 | 35 | 55 | 35 |
| 2032 | 40 | 60 | 40 |
| 2033 | 45 | 65 | 40 |
| 2034 | 50 | 70 | 40 |
| 2035 | 55 | 75 | 40 |
The new rule is part of CARB's broader strategy to target emissions from trucks. According to CARB estimates, heavy duty diesel vehicles emit roughly one quarter of smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) within the state, despite accounting for roughly only seven percent of vehicles registered. Later this year, CARB is expected to enact a rule that would make NOx standards more stringent by a factor of ten, which would create an incentive for manufacturers to move towards ZEVs. The agency also is also implementing programs to control emissions from vehicles already in use, such as continuing to strengthen the heavy duty onboard diagnostics program it pioneered, and developing a heavy duty inspection and maintenance program.
Upon adoption of the rule, CARB said it was zeroing-in on air pollution in the most disadvantaged and polluted communities adjacent to ports, railyards, distribution centers and freight corridors. And the rule specifically cites as its purpose reduction of emissions of not only greenhouse gases, but criteria and toxic air pollutants as well.
The mandate operates through a deficit and credit accounting mechanism. Deficits are calculated for each model year by applying the percentages in the table to a manufacturer's annual sales volume, along with weight class modifiers (ranging from 0.8 for vehicles in the Class 2b-3 group, to 2.5 for vehicles in the Class 7-8 tractor group). Credits are generated by sales of ZEVs and NZEVs—near zero emission vehicles—which are plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a minimum all-electric range. For each model year, manufacturers must obtain credits in excess of their deficits for all truck categories and specifically for the Class 7-8 tractor category. Credits may be traded and banked, but have a limited lifetime. The rule also contains a fleet monitoring component, requiring large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers, and others to provide information about shipments, shuttle services, and fleet operations.
California must seek a waiver of preemption from U.S.EPA执行更严格机动车标准前。 CARB决议通过规则指示机构向EPA提交规则并请求放弃先发制人或确认规则属于现有放弃范围The Clean Air Act requires EPA to grant a waiver unless it finds that California does not need the standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, the state's standards are not, in the aggregate, as protective as federal standards, or there is inadequate lead-time for the development and application of the requisite technology. Although EPA has historically granted California's waiver requests, EPA under the Trump Administration withdrew California's waiver to enforce its Advanced Clean Car program for light-duty vehicles, which includes both the state's more stringent greenhouse gas standards as well as its ZEV mandate. Withdrawal of the waiver has been challenged in the D.C.电路上诉法院目前正在诉讼中.
California州获EP豁免新规则,很可能产生全局效果. 多州,特别是东北州,表示支持新规则,并可能选择使用清洁空气法第177节将它应用到自己的程序中. 这可能为ZEVs创建国家市场,帮助实现程序成功所需的燃料基础设施.A决定由美国上星期发布上诉法院Circuit in P&ID v.i) 拒绝选择东道国实体法并(二) 特别在不可能实现时,包括确认当事人协议的明确语言,即尽管选择东道国法律管辖合同解释,仲裁过程受仲裁所在地法管 。
a上星期五发布电路似乎偏离传统观点,建议实体法适用于争议案情的州法院可撤销裁决。具体地说,法院表示 : “ 纽约公约确认,由自主实体法法院和仲裁发生地君主法院可撤销或中止裁决”(slipopop.,p.)。九号机
有理由怀疑法院的意见是否反映了对传统观点的深思拒绝。电路确认,V(1)(e)条[《纽约公约 中`根据它的法律'短语..程序法指仲裁,而非实体法指协议。”见,例如 ,
换句话说,当事双方明文选择尼日利亚法律规范实质和程序,因此法院尽管明确引用“实体法”,可能不注重实体法和程序法的区别 。
但也有理由不驳回法院选词, 特别是d.C电路公司的意见可结合处理是否推定当事人实体法控制仲裁过程的其他法域的裁决阅读。最近由
- Where possible, investors should resist selection of the host state's substantive law.
- Where it is not possible to resist selection of the host state's substantive law, investors should seek clear contractual language specifying that the procedural law of the arbitration is the law of the seat of the arbitration, and not the law of the host state, and that the courts of the seat have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over arbitrations arising under the relevant agreement.
Drafted carefully, such language can reinforce that the parties considered and specifically rejected any implication that the host state's courts could exercise supervisory jurisdiction over arbitrations between them.
The Atlantic Richfield decision may have the effect of avoiding collateral attacks on EPA cleanup decisions by placing EPA in the role of gatekeeper for state lawsuits seeking restoration damages. In the present case, EPA stated that the landowners' restoration plan, if implemented, would interfere with EPA's approved cleanup by, for example, digging up soil that has been deliberately capped in place. The court's decision in Atlantic Richfield may also have the effect of avoiding the award of windfall profits in cases where plaintiffs seek huge "restoration damages" that go well beyond actual compensatory damages they have suffered.
For many years EPA worked with Atlantic Richfield, the current owner of a former smelter, to implement a cleanup plan expected to continue through 2025 for remediation of contaminated soil. A group of 98 landowners sued Atlantic Richfield in Montana state court for common law nuisance, trespass, and strict liability, seeking restoration damages.原告请求损害赔偿的依据是拟议恢复计划,超出EPA认为保护人类健康和环境适当的措施范围The trial court granted summary judgment to the landowners on the issue of whether CERCLA precluded their restoration damages claim, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The US Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
The Supreme Court first needed to decide whether CERCLA deprived the Montana courts of jurisdiction. The landowner's claims for trespass and nuisance arise under Montana law not CERCLA, the Court held, and thus are not barred by Section 113(b) of the Act, which provides that federal District Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction "over all controversies arising under this chapter." Similarly, the Court held that a suit in Montana state court is not precluded by CERCLA §113(h), which states that "[n]o Federal court shall have jurisdiction under Federal law ...to review any challenges to removal or remedial action" selected under CERCLA. In short, §113(b) deprives state courts of jurisdiction over cases arising under CERCLA, while §113(h) deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over certain challenges to Superfund remedial actions.
The parties conceded that under §122(e)(6) of CERCLA, when EPA or a responsible party has initiated a remedial investigation and feasibility study for a particular facility, no potentially responsible party may undertake any remedial action at the facility unless such remedial action has been authorized by EPA. The court in Atlantic Richfield held that because arsenic and lead are hazardous substances that have "come to be located" on the plaintiffs' properties, the plaintiffs are potentially responsible parties under §107(a) of CERCLA. Therefore, under the statute, the plaintiffs claim for restoration damages may proceed only if the landowners first obtain EPA approval for the restoration work they seek to implement.
What are the implications of the Court's ruling? Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas dissented, stating that the Court's reading of the Act endorses "paternalistic central planning" and turns a cold shoulder to "state law efforts to restore state lands." This argument was not compelling to the majority because, as the Court's opinion notes, cleanup plans generally must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate state environmental standards and, moreover, states have opportunities for involvement in developing and selecting cleanup plans. The court's ruling in Atlantic Richfield may also head off what are, in effect, collateral attacks on EPA's remedial decisions and the confusion and delay threatened by such lawsuits.
The Atlantic Richfield decision may serve to avoid unjust awards of windfall profits to plaintiffs who seek so-called restoration damages that go beyond any actual damages. Indeed, litigation in Montana illustrates the basis for such concern.sunburst学校二区vTexaco, 165 P.3d 1079 (2007), the Montana Supreme Court approved an award of damages that Texaco claimed would exceed the value of the property allegedly damaged and thus would result in a windfall. The Court recognized the problem identified by Texaco, citing Montana law that an injured party should be made whole but not profit. However, the court in Sunburst found that the general rule in favor of diminution in value as the appropriate measure of damages can be overcome where the record shows that an award of restoration damages will actually be used to repair the damaged property rather than simply paid to plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court's decision in Atlantic Richfield may avoid the need for a trial court to deal with "windfall profit" issues in cases where plaintiffs are responsible parties, EPA has selected a CERCLA remedy, and EPA has not authorized the restoration plan. In Atlantic Richfield, EPA represented that the landowners' restoration plan would dig up soil that has been deliberately capped in place under the EPA approved remedy found to be protective.遇此案例,人们可以理解为什么EPA不授权修复计划 。
法院裁决Otlantic Richfield 不处理原告非潜在责任方的恢复损害索赔,例如拥有非受污染财产的当事人可提出普通法索赔,如价值缩水等。虽然恢复损耗诉讼过去不常见,但ActicanRichfield 裁决可促使根据州法增加此类索赔。邻接地主可起诉“净化非净化恢复损失 ”, 即 i.提供比国家环境需求更多(和更多更多费用)修复方法;这类案例的初审法院大概会注意原告根据州法拥有其他补偿性减值补偿法的事实。 此外,被告意识到潜在的“负利”问题,可请求初审法院要求被告定期补偿实际恢复费用-而不是整笔支付-处理原告可能决定扣下损害裁定额而不是执行提交法院的全部或大部分恢复计划的问题。
On May 21, in an open virtual meeting the SEC's 23-member Investor Advisory Committee debated and endorsed the Investor as Owner Subcommittee's long-awaited recommendations that the Commission begin in earnest an effort to update the reporting requirements of Issuers to include material, decision-useful, environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. That same day, BlackRock shareholders debated in a virtual annual meeting whether the world's largest asset manager is living up to CEO Larry Fink's much ballyhooed commitment to sustainability as BlackRock's new standard of investing and investment stewardship (as previously detailed in this blogpost). While the path forward on possible new principles-based SEC disclosure rules around ESG factors may be long and uncertain, the Subcommittee's recommendations offer useful considerations for companies in preparing currently required SEC filings and voluntary sustainability reports.spanid表示'More-7237'/span/p>
关键点建议包括:
- The unregulated market of third party ESG data providers is burdensome, confusing and does not satisfy investor or issuer needs. The Subcommittee added, "[b]ecause of the patchwork approach to disclosure outside of the US and the lack of clear disclosure obligations in the US, third party ESG data providers, many of whom provide a scoring or ratings system, have sprung up to fill the void between what companies disclose publicly and the information investors seek to make investment and voting decisions.过多ESG数据提供方,所有提供方都具有不同的标准,这给美国发行者带来了沉重负担数据提供方使用不同信息来源进行分析并制作工作产品公司无穷无尽地请求多数据提供方提供ESG信息,使重负复加到有时几何比例公司忽略这些报告、不完全填全或无法回答特定查询并回答'是或否'风险评分低或发布低ESG评分或评分低这可能直接影响到他们的股价和获取资本的能力,而投资管理者评价时有或无ESG相关投资任务发布者没有分配足够时间或资源向多数据提供者提供这些广度报告请求而置之不理。”
-
- Investors require reliable, material ESG information upon which to base investment and voting decisions.
- Issuers should directly provide material information to the market relating to ESG issues used by investors to make investment and voting decisions.
- Requiring material ESG disclosure will level the playing field between Issuers.
- ESG disclosure requirements will ensure the flow of capital to the us markets and to US Issuers of all sizes.
- The US should take the lead on disclosure of material ESG disclosure
The subcommittee concluded by noting,
"[w]e recognize that any new reporting regime is difficult and comes with related litigation risk.构思良好、基于原则的报告机制使每个发行者,不论行业或商务线,都能够说明与材料ESG因素相关的风险、策略和机会,与当前披露商业风险、策略和机会无异于当前披露商业风险、策略和机会无关ESG事务是每个发行者事务的一部分,每个发行者独有。此类披露需要前瞻分析,如果有材料,我们注意到材料前向披露已经嵌入SEC的披露机制中,例如MD&A讨论、并发事务披露预测协同效应和模拟财务报表中。
SECCCLiton主席表示他将审查委员会的建议,但停止支持制定关于ESG事务定型监管政策In his prepared remarks to the committee, Chair Clayton reiterated his November thoughts regarding the utility of combining E, S, and G matters noting that, "E, S and G are quite different baskets of disclosure matters and that lumping them together diminishes the usefulness, including investor understanding, of such disclosures." Commissioner Hester Peirce expressed deeper reservations with the committee's recommendations and the general advisability of adopting a new ESG disclosure framework. Commissioner Peirce argued that the current securities disclosure framework is already appropriately structured to present material information to investors, but invited the committee to bring to the attention of the Commission "discrete pieces of information for which disclosure mandates are necessary."As described in an earlier post to this blog, the Commerce Department initiated an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 into whether "laminations for stacked cores for incorporation into transformers, stacked and wound cores for incorporation into transformers, electrical transformers, and transformer regulators are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security."
The Commerce Department has requested public comments regarding the investigation. Interested parties may submit written comments, data, analyses or other information pertinent to the Commerce Department's investigation no later than June 9.万博体育app手机登录2020. Rebuttal comments are due by June 19, 2020.
This investigation should be of interest to electric utilities and other electricity suppliers, as well as other firms whose services require the use of electrical transformers.
Guidance for comments
The Federal Register announcement of the request for comments lists the following as topics that the Commerce Department is particularly interested in regarding "laminations for stacked cores for incorporation into transformers, stacked and wound cores for incorporation into transformers, electrical transformers, and transformer regulators" ("the Products"):
- Quantity of, or other circumstances related to, the importation of the Products;
- Domestic production and productive capacity needed for the Products to meet projected national defense requirements;
- Existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce the Products;
- Growth requirements of Products' industries to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements for supplies and services necessary to assure such growth including investment, exploration, and development;
- The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the Products' industries;
- The displacement of any domestic production of the Products causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects;
- National defense supporting uses of the Products including data on applicable contracts or sub-contracts, both past and current;
- Country of manufacture for the Products;
- Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy
The Federal Register notice also describes detailed requirements for submitting comments and rebuttal comments. The Commerce Department is allowed to take up to 270 days for the investigation, but it is not required to do so.
EPA on May 19 released a proposed rule that would put in place a set of regulations governing EPA's issuance, modification, and withdrawal of guidance documents. This proposal implements portions of Executive Order 13891, and builds on EPA's previous efforts to create a comprehensive portal of guidance documents earlier this year. Generally speaking, the stated purpose of the rule is to allow for increased transparency and public involvement in EPA's guidance-formulation process, but the proposal also contains several key limitations.
Six specific aspects of EPA's proposed rule, which illustrate its possibilities as well as its limits, are particularly noteworthy:
- Public Comment on Proposed Guidance Would Be Limited to "Significant" Guidance Documents. EPA's rule would only require notice and comment with respect to "significant" guidance documents, principally those with more than a $100 million effect on the economy and those raising "novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates." Other proposed guidance documents would not be subject to notice and comment, but would be required to be posted on EPA's Guidance Portal when finalized.
- Creation of a Petition Process for Withdrawing or Modifying Guidance. EPA proposes to create a process whereby members of the public may petition the agency to withdraw or modify guidance. The proposal would allow EPA up to 180 days to respond to such petitions!万博体育app手机登录请求获批后,EPA没有设定时间推向撤销或修改指南。建议表示EPA的请愿判定不受《行政程序法》司法审查,因为拟议规则“仅供EPA人员使用,目的不在于或不会产生任何权利或利益、实体或程序、法律上或公平执行美国。”万博体育app手机登录EPA has requested comment on whether it should create a similar petition process for regulations, beyond the basic statutory petition process established by section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Many Documents that Provide Guidance Are Not Subject to the Rule. The rule excludes a variety of documents from its scope, including the requirement that they be posted online. Excluded categories of documents include:
-
- "Internal" guidance not intended to have "substantial" future effect on regulated parties
- Advisory or legal opinions addressing circumstance-specific questions
- Internal legal opinions
- Legal briefs and other court filings
- EPA adjudications
- EPA May Vary from This Rule at Will.万博体育app手机登录/强/强/强/强/强/强/主执行令13891第3(b)节规定EPA不得发布指导文件而不贴入网站万博体育app手机登录Before a guidance document could be posted, EPA's proposed rule would require that the guidance be approved by "[t]he EPA Administrator or other Presidentially-appointed EPA official, or an official who is serving in the acting capacity of either of the foregoing."
Continued publication of guidance in an accessible, transparent fashion will undoubtedly help regulated parties and members of the public better understand EPA's guidance on important issues. However, it is far from clear whether the other aspects of the rule will result in any significant change. For example, it is unclear whether the public comment and petition processes will have a significant impact on EPA guidance documents, particularly given that the guidance itself, and petition determinations, would likely not be subject to judicial review.
Separately, as this blog previously discussed, increased transparency and public participation surrounding EPA guidance documents will make them more likely to receive judicial deference, in light of last year's Supreme Court decision in Kisor v.Wilkie .
公共评语自联邦寄存器发布后30天到期。The Commerce Department on May 4, 2020, announced a new investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, examining whether "laminations for stacked cores for incorporation into transformers, stacked and wound cores for incorporation into transformers, electrical transformers, and transformer regulators are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security."
This investigation should be of interest to electric utilities and other electricity suppliers, as well as other firms whose services require the use of electrical transformers.
Section 232 and its process
Section 232 is a powerful tool.s/covcommunate.com/51/3165/uploads/covington-ward-Nation-security-Strigation-Steel-It survived a recent constitutional challenge, as we explained in this article.美国联邦巡回上诉法院维护法律合宪性,但该案原告American国际钢铁协会有请求最高法院审查Certiorari请求回复日期为2020年5月26日。
As规程要求BIS考虑以下因素:
- 国家安全和 替换家庭产品导致大量失业、政府收入下降、投资或专业技能及生产能力损失或其他严重影响。
规范要求商务部通知国防部调查,但不一定与国防部长“协调”。诚然,两省可以像第232节钢调查时那样,对适当的对策得出对立结论。
规则还要求BIS为行业提供提交评论的机会,并允许BIS公开听证虽然条例还允许商务在某些紧急情况下“破解或免去任何或全部程序”,但我们不期望商务引用这一例外公告明确指出商务为公众提供评论契机。
商务部允许花270天调查,但无需这样做离总统选举不到190天,政府可能拥有强大的政治动机加速调查2018年,由两党组成的Seel-stateServicesss/www.bround.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-portman-casey-ask-president-trump-to-proritize-el-eel-in-any-232trade所代表州-俄亥俄州和宾夕法尼亚州-是关键选战场,总统可能视调查为为向这些州选民提供经济利益的契机。