If your business sells or distributes products or devices by claiming that the products work against or kill COVID-19, beware that such claims are subject to regulatory oversight by a variety of governmental agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Trade Commission, and the Food & Drug Administration. Unsuspecting companies in the sale and distribution of these products, such as disinfectants, sanitizers, or cleaners, must ensure their labels and marketing claims satisfy regulatory requirements.
Recently, EPA issued an Interim OECA Guidance on EPA and state roles on managing enforcement and compliance assistance. See, Interim OECA Guidance on Enhancing Regional—State Planning and Communication on Compliance Assurance Work in Authorized States. While EPA is seeking to emphasize cooperative federalism in modifying the emphasis of the 1986 revised policy on state/EPA enforcement agreements, as provided in the first footnote of the Guidance, the policy issued on January 22, 2018, appears to make the states the primary enforcer of environmental laws and provides a secondary role for EPA in that regard.
In January 2017, both EPA and OSHA increased civil penalties for new enforcement cases. While the increases became effective just days before the new Administration took office, the increases are a result of Congressional action in 2015 to annually adjust civil penalties for inflation by January 15 of each new calendar year.
On November 28, 2016, EPA published the final version of the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule (the Rule) in the Federal Register. Promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Rule updates EPA’s regulations governing generators of hazardous waste, most of which EPA promulgated in the 1980s. The Rule significantly revises the hazardous waste generator requirements.
Retail and Consumer Product Hazardous Waste – Update on Reverse Distribution and Aerosol Cans by EPA
On September 12, 2016, EPA issued its “Strategy for Addressing the Retail Sector under RCRA’s Regulatory Framework.” The strategy document sets forth three actions the agency is expected to finalize in the short-term to help ease the RCRA burden on managing retail and consumer products that may trigger RCRA hazardous waste characteristics or RCRA listings once a decision to discard is made.
Effective July 1, 2016, buyers of industrial and commercial properties in Kansas may qualify for a Certificate of Environmental Liability Release (CELR) under the state’s new Contaminated Property Redevelopment Act. This liability release for pre-existing contamination is important for prospective purchasers of industrial and commercial properties by helping to facilitate those transactions and allow the buyer to avoid state cleanup responsibility. But not only buyers benefit, as sellers can also demonstrate a framework that allows the transaction to proceed and maximize the property value without the buyer or seller taking on unnecessary risk if the proper steps to obtain the CELR are followed.
On March 10, 2015, EPA issued a new revised 2015 Update to its Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) Policy, thereby superseding prior SEP policies.
In a recent January 2015 Memorandum to EPA’s Regional Enforcement Managers from Cynthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, EPA is touting its Next Generation Compliance strategy as “an integrated strategy” intended to “bring together the best thinking from inside and outside EPA.”
Last week, on January 13, 2015, EPA issued its new “Definition of Solid Waste” Final Rule in the Federal Register at 80 Fed. Reg. 1694. This new rulemaking will have significant impacts regarding how secondary hazardous materials are recycled and exempted from the hazardous waste regulations. Unless challenged (and by all accounts it appears at least certain aspects may be litigated based on initial comments by various industrial sectors) the rule becomes effective on July 13, 2015, where EPA is the authorized implementing agency (Iowa, Alaska, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Because RCRA is a federally delegated program, other states will have to adopt the more stringent aspects of the rule discussed below.
Earlier today, June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, et al., slip op. No. 13–339 (U.S., 6-9-2014). Reversing the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the Superfund law’s preemption of state statutes of limitation for personal injury or property damage claims does not apply to state statutes of repose. Not every state has such a statute on the books, but for those that do, this may provide an additional shield for defendants, and an additional hurdle for plaintiffs.
On April 4, 2013, the Fourth Circuit handed down its much-awaited decision about what a bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) of contaminated property must do to retain the Brownfields defense to Superfund liability. In PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC, No. 11-2087, slip op. at 31 (4th Cir. April 4, 2013), the Court held that a property redeveloper, Ashley II, was liable as a current owner potentially responsible party (PRP) for soil contamination at the former phosphate fertilizer plant despite its “all appropriate inquiry” pre-purchase investigation of past environmental conditions at the facility. Ashley II knew that old sumps at the property contained contaminated water, yet for years did nothing to clean out or close the sumps. This failure to stop a continuing release violated the post-purchase “due care” or “reasonable steps” requirements of the BFPP defense, and negated its applicability to Ashley II.