The proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2026. It is a proposed rule, not a final regulation, so the changes are not yet in effect.

EPA is considering revisions to emissions-related warranty periods, regulatory useful-life requirements, nonconformance penalties for some manufacturers and the way certain diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF, and selective catalytic reduction, or SCR, problems are handled. The docket is EPA-HQ-OAR-2026-0728.

What EPA is proposing

For model-year 2027 and later engines, EPA proposes retaining the emission-related warranty periods that applied to model year 2026 and earlier engines. The proposed minimum warranty periods would be five years and 100,000 miles for medium- and heavy-heavy-duty engines, subject to the applicable regulatory class and whichever limit comes first.

EPA also proposes delaying the longer regulatory useful-life requirements adopted in the 2023 heavy-duty rule by three years, until model year 2030. Regulatory useful life is the period during which an engine must continue meeting applicable emissions requirements for certification purposes; it is not necessarily the same as the engine’s total operating life.

The agency also proposes making nonconformance penalties available beginning in model year 2027 for manufacturers of medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-duty diesel engines. Under the proposal, eligible manufacturers could temporarily certify and sell engines above an applicable emissions standard while paying prescribed penalties and meeting other conditions. EPA says the provision is intended as a bridge for manufacturers facing technical delays in completing engines designed for the 2027 standards.

A separate section addresses SCR systems that use DEF. For newly manufactured diesel-fueled highway engines and vehicles, as well as certain nonroad engines and equipment, EPA proposes replacing some SCR-related engine derates and vehicle-speed reductions with audible and/or visible notifications.

If finalized, that change could mean future model-year equipment warns operators about specified DEF or SCR problems without automatically reducing engine power or vehicle speed in every situation. EPA says manufacturers could still use derates when needed to protect an engine or aftertreatment system from catastrophic damage.

The proposal principally addresses newly manufactured engines, vehicles and equipment. It would not automatically change the operation of existing trucks. EPA is separately considering guidance that could allow manufacturers to modify some in-use equipment, but that possibility remains under consideration and is not an automatic retrofit program.

What would stay the same

EPA says the proposal would leave the core nitrogen-oxide standards adopted in its 2023 heavy-duty rule in place. The more stringent standards and representative test cycles would remain part of the program.

Using agency modeling, EPA estimates that the amended program would retain nearly 90% of the nitrogen-oxide reductions originally projected under the 2023 rule. EPA also estimates that the amended program would reduce the on-road heavy-duty nitrogen-oxide inventory in 2055 by about 42%, or more than 260,000 tons, compared with a scenario without the 2023 rule. Those are modeled projections, not observed emissions results.

EPA’s analysis also projects higher nitrogen-oxide emissions than under the unchanged 2023 program because of the proposed warranty and useful-life revisions. The actual environmental and operational effects would depend on the final rule, manufacturer compliance decisions, DEF use, SCR reliability and real-world maintenance.

Why the proposal matters

EPA says manufacturers, suppliers, fleets and dealers raised concerns about the cost of the 2023 rule, the longer warranty and useful-life requirements and technical challenges associated with the January 2027 model-year transition.

For manufacturers and fleets, the proposed revisions could affect warranty exposure, compliance costs, engine availability and the timing of new product development. EPA estimates that shorter warranty requirements could reduce vehicle costs, although purchasers could face more repair expenses after the proposed warranty period ends.

For operators, the most visible potential change involves DEF and SCR faults on future equipment. A warning-based system could reduce the risk of an automatic derate or speed reduction for some covered problems, but the proposal does not remove emissions obligations or authorize tampering with emissions controls.

How to submit comments

Manufacturers, trucking companies, equipment makers, environmental organizations, communities near freight corridors and other members of the public may submit written comments through Regulations under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2026-0728. EPA also lists email, mail and hand-delivery options on its public-comment page.

Comments submitted to the docket may be posted publicly without change, including personal information included in the submission. EPA advises commenters not to place confidential business information or other restricted material in the public docket.

The agency’s virtual public hearings on the proposal have concluded. The immediate public-participation opportunity is the written-comment period, which closes August 29, 2026.

After the deadline, EPA will review the docket and decide whether to revise, withdraw or finalize the proposal. Until a final rule is issued and becomes effective, the proposed changes to warranties, useful life, penalties and DEF/SCR fault responses remain under consideration.

Sources

• Federal Register proposed rule
• EPA public comments and hearing information
• FreightWaves trucking-sector report

The proposal concerns state and local permitting programs operating under federal Clean Air Act requirements. If finalized, the revised framework would leave states and local governments to administer their own programs, including decisions about how residents and other members of the public participate in permitting for new or modified minor sources.

The action is a proposed rule, not a final regulation. The EPA announcement does not identify a formal deadline for public comments or indicate that the rule has been finalized.

What would change

New Source Review is the federal permitting system used when facilities are built or modified in ways that may affect air pollution emissions. The proposal specifically addresses minor sources, which are facilities that emit pollutants below the thresholds used to classify major sources.

Under the proposed approach, the federal government would no longer set minimum public-participation requirements for those minor-source permitting decisions. States and local permitting authorities would continue to run their programs, but the procedures used to notify communities or receive comments could vary depending on where a facility is located.

That does not mean public participation would automatically disappear in every state or locality. A state or local government could retain existing procedures or adopt additional ones. The proposed federal change would remove the minimum requirements imposed at the federal level.

The potential result is a more varied permitting landscape. Communities in different states, or even under different local permitting authorities, could encounter different practices for learning about proposed facilities and commenting on them if the rule is finalized and implemented.

Why the proposal matters

Minor-source permits cover facilities below major-source thresholds, but the permitting decisions can still affect how communities receive information about new or modified facilities in their area. Public-participation procedures can provide a way for residents and other interested parties to learn about a permit application and communicate concerns to the authority handling it.

Removing a federal floor could give state and local agencies more flexibility to design or administer permitting systems. It could also mean that the opportunities and procedures available to the public depend more heavily on the rules of the state or locality involved.

The proposal addresses public-participation requirements. The announced action does not establish that pollution limits would be weakened, and it does not quantify how many facilities or emissions would be affected.

What happens next

The EPA must proceed through the federal rulemaking process before the proposal can become a final regulation. The agency’s announcement identifies the action as a proposed rule, so the existing framework remains the relevant regulatory status unless and until EPA takes further action.

Any final rule could determine whether the proposed removal of minimum federal requirements is adopted as written, revised, or not finalized. States and local permitting authorities would then have to administer their programs under whatever federal requirements ultimately remain.

For communities, the practical question is how each state and local authority would handle notice and public comments for minor-source permits under a finalized rule. The EPA proposal would shift more of that responsibility to those authorities while preserving the broader role of state and local programs within the Clean Air Act permitting system.

The dispute centers on whether the executive branch can reduce wetland buffer requirements for some housing projects and change related environmental-review rules without additional legislative approval. Lawmakers have argued that the administration’s approach conflicts with legislative intent and exceeds executive authority.

Vermont Public reported on Aug. 4 that the administration was continuing to advance the wetlands changes despite the lawmakers’ objections. The development keeps alive a conflict that reaches beyond the technical details of wetlands permitting: It also tests the balance between the Vermont Legislature and the governor’s administration when state agencies write or revise rules.

What lawmakers rejected

On May 21, a Vermont legislative oversight committee formally rebuked the Scott administration’s effort to loosen wetlands protections. The proposed changes included reducing buffer requirements for housing near certain wetlands.

Wetland buffers are areas around wetlands where development may face additional limits or review. Changing those requirements could affect where housing can be built and what permitting steps are required for projects near protected wetlands. At the same time, the rules are intended to protect wetlands and the environmental functions they provide.

The committee’s objection was not limited to the environmental effects of the proposal. Lawmakers said the administration’s action was inconsistent with the intent of legislation and went beyond the authority granted to the executive branch. That leaves the central legal and governmental question disputed: whether the administration can proceed with the changes after the legislative oversight committee rejected them.

Connection to Act 181 and housing

The wetlands dispute is part of broader Vermont debates over Act 181, housing construction and environmental review. Those debates reflect competing demands on state policy: Vermont faces pressure to make housing construction possible while also maintaining environmental protections and review requirements.

For people seeking to build or approve housing near wetlands, the outcome could influence the amount of land available for development, the design of projects and the reviews required before construction can proceed. The available facts do not establish how many projects would be affected or whether any specific housing development has changed course.

The issue also matters to residents who rely on predictable permitting rules. A change in the buffer requirements could make some projects easier to pursue, while a legal or legislative challenge could delay implementation or leave applicants uncertain about which standards apply.

Possible legal challenge

The Vermont Natural Resources Council has indicated that litigation could follow if the administration proceeds over lawmakers’ objections. That is a warning about possible legal action, not confirmation that a lawsuit has been filed.

No final rule text, effective date or court filing resolving the dispute has been identified. It therefore remains unclear whether the proposed changes have been formally adopted, filed or made effective.

The next stage will depend on how the administration proceeds with the rule changes and whether lawmakers or environmental advocates take further action. Until the rules’ final legal status is established, the disagreement leaves open both the practical standards for wetlands-related housing projects and the broader question of how far executive rulemaking authority extends in Vermont.

The hearing is set for 1 p.m. on Aug. 24, 2026, and concerns Division 335-6 of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management Administrative Code. The action is identified as statewide and is listed under the Alabama Environmental Management Commission.

The scheduled hearing is a proposed-rulemaking step. It is not an announcement that the revisions have been adopted or that new requirements are already in effect.

What the hearing will address

The approved notice identifies Division 335-6 as the subject of the proposed revisions, but it does not summarize the substantive text of every change. As a result, the available record does not establish which specific standards, procedures or requirements could be altered.

That limitation is important for Alabama residents and businesses trying to understand the practical effect of the proceeding. The rulemaking could change compliance requirements for regulated facilities and requirements faced by permit applicants. It could also affect how Alabama’s water-quality protections are administered.

The record does not identify particular facilities that would face new requirements, describe changes to specific water bodies or quantify expected costs. Those details cannot be determined from the approved notice.

The hearing is the next documented public step. Residents and affected businesses will have a formal opportunity to comment before any final commission action. The approved record does not identify a later commission vote, an effective date or an implementation schedule.

July notices provide regulatory context

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s public-notice records list several related water-quality actions from July 2026.

A statewide pesticide general-permit reissuance is listed with a July 17 date. The same records list a statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, public notice dated July 15.

These notices are part of the broader permitting framework used to oversee activities covered by Alabama’s environmental requirements. They do not, by themselves, show what the Environmental Management Commission will ultimately decide about the proposed Division 335-6 revisions.

A separate ADEM permit document involving an industrial facility in Selma shows the agency’s permitting process and the incorporation of a 2026 production project into an NPDES permit. The document provides a specific example of how industrial operations can be addressed through permitting, while not establishing the outcome of the statewide rulemaking.

Noncompliance activity also listed

ADEM’s records list significant-industrial-user noncompliance activity dated July 21, 2026, involving multiple Alabama counties.

The listing identifies a category of noncompliance activity. It does not establish adjudicated liability for every county, facility or industrial user included in the record. The notice therefore should not be read as a final finding against each entity or location listed.

Considered alongside the July pesticide and NPDES notices, the noncompliance listing shows that permitting and compliance oversight are active parts of the state’s water-quality system. It does not provide evidence that the proposed Division 335-6 changes were prompted by any particular notice or facility.

What happens next

For now, the confirmed development is the statewide public hearing scheduled for Aug. 24 at 1 p.m. The commission will receive public input on the proposed revisions to Division 335-6, but the packet does not include a later decision date or a description of the final action that could follow.

Any effect on Alabama’s water-quality requirements will depend on the substance of the revisions and on what the commission ultimately decides after the rulemaking process. Until then, the rules remain a proposal under consideration rather than an adopted or effective change.

That distinction matters for automakers, truck operators and drivers. The February action rescinded the federal greenhouse-gas endangerment finding and repealed federal greenhouse-gas standards for new light-, medium- and heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines. The July action would change parts of separate nitrogen-oxide compliance rules for model-year 2027-and-later heavy-duty engines, but it has not taken effect.

What changed in February

EPA finalized the rescission of the 2009 greenhouse-gas endangerment finding on February 12, 2026. The rule was published in the Federal Register on February 18 and became effective April 20.

EPA said the finding had served as a prerequisite for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles and engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The final rule also repealed federal greenhouse-gas standards covering light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and engines. The Government Accountability Office confirmed the rule’s publication, effective date and scope.

EPA describes the action as a major cost-saving measure. The agency’s own page says it expects more than $1.3 trillion in savings, while the GAO review records a range of EPA economic scenarios. Those are agency estimates, not independently established outcomes.

What the final rule does not change

The February rule concerns greenhouse gases. EPA says it does not repeal regulations for traditional air pollutants, including pollutants covered by separate vehicle and engine programs.

It also does not mean that all federal vehicle requirements have disappeared. Vehicle-safety standards, fuel-economy requirements, other emissions rules and state-level requirements remain separate parts of the regulatory system. The February rule is not, by itself, an instruction for people who already own vehicles to replace them.

What the July heavy-truck proposal would do

On July 9, EPA proposed amendments affecting certain compliance provisions and test procedures for model-year 2027-and-later heavy-duty highway engines. The proposal addresses emissions warranties, regulatory useful life, transition treatment and related compliance requirements.

Under the proposal, some manufacturers could continue selling current heavy-duty engines while completing development of engines intended to meet the 2027 requirements. EPA also proposed penalties or other conditions for some engines that temporarily would not meet the standards.

EPA said the proposal could reduce some warranty obligations and provide additional lead time before longer useful-life requirements apply. Reuters reported that EPA estimates the changes could save up to $12 billion, or as much as $6,000 per truck. Those figures are EPA’s estimates, not guaranteed savings for buyers or operators.

EPA also said the proposal would preserve nearly 90% of the nitrogen-oxide reductions projected under the Biden-era heavy-duty standards. Environmental groups dispute that assessment and say weaker requirements could increase pollution and health risks. Those objections are arguments about the proposal’s projected consequences, not settled findings.

Why the distinction matters

Greenhouse gases and nitrogen oxides are different regulatory issues. The February rule removed federal greenhouse-gas standards. The July proposal primarily concerns how manufacturers comply with separate heavy-duty standards for nitrogen oxides and related traditional pollutants.

For truck manufacturers and fleet operators, the proposal could affect engine-development schedules, compliance planning, product availability and potential costs. But no final change to those heavy-duty provisions has been adopted through the July proposal.

The court and state fights are still open

States are challenging the February rescission in the D.C. Circuit in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The states filed their petition for review on March 19, 2026, and the court issued a scheduling order on April 22. Those steps establish an active case, not the outcome. The court could ultimately leave the rule in place, send it back to EPA or take another action; the schedule does not predict the result.

Federal-state authority is also unsettled. On July 22, EPA said it transmitted two additional California waiver rules to Congress under the Congressional Review Act. The cited July action concerns California rules for ocean-going vessels at berth and commercial harbor craft. EPA said it had transmitted four separate California vehicle and equipment waiver rules in June, including rules involving cars and trucks. Together, the actions keep California’s authority to set separate emissions requirements in the national policy debate.

What to watch next

The main questions are whether EPA will finalize the heavy-duty proposal, how the D.C. Circuit handles the challenge to the February rule, and whether Congress takes action on California waiver rules.

For ordinary drivers, the immediate takeaway is limited: the federal greenhouse-gas rule changed on April 20, but the newest heavy-truck action is not final, and safety, fuel-economy, traditional-pollutant and state requirements still matter. Readers should not assume that every vehicle rule has disappeared or that the federal changes have already determined EV sales, vehicle prices or automaker product plans.

Sources

• EPA final rule on greenhouse-gas vehicle standards
• GAO review of EPA’s rescission rule
• Reuters report on the heavy-truck proposal
• Oregon DOJ litigation tracker

The broader industrial-park proposal was approved, according to the commission’s findings as reported by Seven Days and the state’s Act 250 agenda. The immediate question is how the project can be built without the rock-extraction operation that was intended to provide construction material and generate commercial sales.

What was proposed

Act 250 project 5L1614-1 covers 2322 Laporte Road, west of Vermont Route 100 and across from the Morrisville-Stowe Airport. The industrial park would occupy an 89-acre sub-parcel of a larger 437-acre property in Morristown’s IND 5 industrial district.

The plan includes 26 industrial lots, buildings, roads, utilities, wastewater infrastructure, water systems and related site improvements. The proposed water-supply well, treatment building and storage facility would be located on another sub-parcel of the larger property between Cochran and Stagecoach roads, according to the Vermont Act 250 project listing.

During construction, the applicant proposed removing rock from a bedrock knoll on the southern portion of the 89-acre site. The state’s project description says the rock would be processed and used for project infrastructure, with remaining material sold commercially. After extraction, the area would be reclaimed and used for industrial lots.

Seven Days reported that the proposed operation would remove about 35,000 tons of material a year for roughly a decade. The commission approved the business park but rejected that quarry component.

Why the commission rejected the quarry

The commission found that quarrying was not allowed in that part of Morristown under the town’s own rules. The applicant had argued that the excavation was temporary and incidental to grading the site for the industrial park.

The commission disagreed. Its findings said removing an 8.5-acre rock hill over a decade could not be considered incidental in the ordinary meaning of the word, according to Seven Days’ account of the decision.

Commissioners also found the proposed dust controls inadequate. The plan included measures such as watering areas during blasting and crushing, but the commission concluded that the quarry could be a dangerous source of air pollution.

The decision also addressed the project’s effects on the surrounding community. The commission cited noise, dust and truck traffic, including about 30 truck trips a day, as contributing to an undue aesthetic effect. Its findings described the proposed disturbance as “offensive and shocking” when compared with the existing forested and agricultural setting.

Those were reasons for denying the proposed operation. They were not a finding that unlawful pollution had already occurred at the site.

What remains possible for the industrial park

The quarry denial did not invalidate the broader industrial-park permit. The official Act 250 agenda lists project 5L1614-1 as a permit issued July 27, 2026, and Seven Days reported that the commission approved the park while rejecting the quarry.

It remains unclear whether the applicant will redesign the project, buy construction material from another source, seek a revised approval or abandon the development. Seven Days reported that developer Garret Hirchak and his attorney had not immediately responded to requests for comment.

The quarry decision could materially change the project’s construction and financing plan. The extracted rock was intended for roads and utilities, while surplus sales were expected to help support the project. Seven Days reported an estimated $8 million in construction costs, but the available record does not establish whether the park can proceed under its existing engineering and financial plan without on-site extraction.

What Morristown residents should watch

Residents tracking the project should watch the Act 250 record for revised site-work plans, notices about alternative sources of fill or aggregate, and filings that explain how the permitted industrial park will address the quarry denial.

An appeal is also possible. Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504, an aggrieved person or party by right generally has 30 days from the legally operative date of a District Commission decision to appeal to the Environmental Division, subject to the statute’s eligibility and notice requirements. The exact deadline should be confirmed from the final decision before publication or reliance on a filing date.

No appeal should be assumed unless it appears in the Act 250 or court records.

For future filings, residents can search Vermont’s Act 250 database under project number 5L1614-1. That record will show whether the permitted industrial park is modified, challenged or pursued without the proposed quarry.

Sources

• Vermont Act 250 agenda and status page
• Seven Days: Proposed Morristown Quarry Rejected As 'Shocking and Offensive'
• 10 V.S.A. § 8504

The notice follows the utility’s 2026 Water Quality Report, which covers testing conducted during 2025 and lists detections of several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS.

What the utility reported

The Muscle Shoals Utilities Board’s water treatment plant uses Wilson Lake on the Tennessee River as its drinking-water source. In the report’s 2025 PFAS table, the utility lists PFOS at 17.0 parts per trillion and PFOA at 9.8 parts per trillion. It also lists PFHxA at 3.5 ppt, PFHxS at 2.3 ppt, PFBS at 4.9 ppt and PFHpA at 2.4 ppt.

A separate Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 table lists PFOA at 9.6 ppt and PFOS at 16.0 ppt, along with PFBA at 5.0 ppt, PFHxA at 4.2 ppt and PFBS at 5.1 ppt. Those are separately identified monitoring results in the utility’s report, not additional figures that replace the values in the PFAS table.

The reported concentrations show what the utility detected in its 2025 testing. By themselves, they do not establish that Muscle Shoals has been formally adjudicated in violation or that a final compliance determination has been issued.

Temporary treatment is already in use

The utility says it has installed granular activated carbon, or GAC, in existing filters at its water plant as a temporary and emergency measure to reduce PFAS while permanent and long-term filtration improvements are evaluated, designed and implemented.

The report also says the utility completed an earlier pilot study of PFAS treatment technologies and is working with engineers to select the best method. The temporary GAC installation should not be read as proof that PFAS has been eliminated or that the system is guaranteed to meet every applicable requirement.

What the new $370,000 study will examine

ADEM‘s notice identifies the proposed project as SRF Project No. FS010395-02. It describes a PFAS treatment pilot study intended to compare treatment alternatives, expected performance, capital costs and operating-and-maintenance costs. The stated goal is to help identify a method capable of meeting or exceeding the 4.0-ppt PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels.

The $370,000 is assistance for pilot-study work, not a permanent treatment construction award or the final cost of a buildout. ADEM’s records do not select a permanent technology, establish a construction schedule or determine the total amount ultimately needed.

What the 4.0-ppt standard means here

EPA‘s 2024 final PFAS drinking-water rule established enforceable maximum contaminant levels of 4.0 ppt each for PFOA and PFOS. The Muscle Shoals report’s 2025 results are higher than 4.0 ppt for both substances, but the cited local records do not say that the utility has been formally found in violation.

EPA’s separate 2026 compliance-extension proposal would allow eligible systems to seek additional time to comply while keeping the 4.0-ppt limits in place. That proposal is not a final change to the federal compliance timetable, and the records cited here do not show that Muscle Shoals has received such an extension.

What remains undecided for customers

The records do not yet establish the permanent treatment method, final capital cost, construction schedule, financing beyond the pilot assistance or whether customer rates could change.

The utility says it does not believe PFAS-related capital and operating costs should be borne by ratepayers and says it is pursuing claims against parties it holds responsible for the contamination. That is the utility’s stated position, not a final funding or rate decision.

Public comments are still open

ADEM determined that the proposed project qualifies for a categorical exclusion from further environmental study under the state’s environmental review process. That determination is not the same as a final construction approval.

ADEM’s notice, dated July 28, 2026, says written comments must be submitted within 30 days of the public notice. Based on that notice date, the stated comment period runs through August 27, 2026. ADEM says it will evaluate opposing comments before taking formal action to proceed with the project.

For Muscle Shoals customers, the practical takeaway is that the utility has published 2025 PFAS test results, temporary GAC treatment is operating, and state-supported pilot work is being proposed to help determine a long-term solution. The permanent technology, project cost, schedule and customer impact have not been decided in the cited records.

Sources

• ADEM categorical exclusion and DWSRF notice for Muscle Shoals Utilities Board
• Muscle Shoals Utilities Board 2026 Water Quality Report
• EPA proposed PFOA and PFOS Compliance Extension Rule

The two tracks are legally distinct. The ISA governs mineral activities on the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, while the proposed American Samoa leases would be in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Together, however, they show how demand for critical minerals is testing the pace and reach of ocean governance.

ISA work remains focused on standards

On July 1, the ISA posted a consultancy call seeking support for draft standards and guidelines on environmental thresholds. The call is part of continuing technical work on the rules that would govern any future exploitation in the international seabed area.

The second part of the ISA’s 31st session ran in Kingston from July 13 through July 31, according to the United Nations’ Indico calendar. The council agenda included reports on national legislation related to deep-seabed mining, exploration contracts and the relinquishment of portions of exploration areas.

Those agenda items represent continuing regulatory work, not an authorization to begin commercial mining. The ISA says there is currently no commercial exploitation of deep-sea minerals in the international seabed area, known as “the Area.” The activities now taking place are exploration operations for scientific and resource-assessment purposes.

What the international framework covers

The ISA says its mandate includes organizing and controlling mineral-related activities in the Area and protecting the marine environment from harmful effects that could arise from those activities.

The Area covers about 54% of the world’s oceans, according to the ISA. It is the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, where mineral resources are managed through an international framework intended to benefit humanity as a whole.

The immediate regulatory question is therefore not simply whether minerals are present. It is whether regulators can establish credible limits for disturbance, pollution, monitoring and ecosystem protection before commercial operations are approved.

Why American Samoa is a separate track

The U.S. proposal concerns waters surrounding American Samoa and is outside the ISA’s jurisdiction. Associated Press reported that the proposed leasing notice covers 33 million acres, or about 51,560 square miles.

The initial leases would support preliminary activities such as geophysical surveys, biological sampling and oceanographic measurements. Any future mining would require a separate plan and additional approval following environmental review, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management assessment cited by AP.

The assessment acknowledged uncertainty and data gaps in deeper waters, where biodiversity, ecological functions and baseline conditions remain poorly characterized. AP also reported that the proposed area is near the Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and several national marine sanctuaries.

What readers should watch next

The American Samoa action is a proposed leasing process, not a completed auction and not automatic permission to mine. The next steps include agency decisions, environmental review and responses from affected governments and communities.

For the ISA, the important signals will be final regulatory documents, environmental standards and decisions on how any future exploitation would be monitored and controlled. The July work did not itself approve commercial mining rules or authorize mining.

The practical stakes extend from possible supplies of minerals used in technology, energy and defense to the condition of deep-ocean ecosystems and the interests of Pacific island communities. Because the U.S. and international tracks operate under different legal systems, safeguards adopted for one part of the ocean would not automatically govern the other.

Sources

• International Seabed Authority environmental-thresholds consultancy call
• U.N. Indico record of the ISA 31st session
• Associated Press report on proposed American Samoa leases

EPA announced the proposal on July 13, 2026, and published the advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on July 14. The notice asks whether eligible facilities should receive temporary coverage under a general permit while EPA or an approved state develops an individual permit.

It is an advance notice, not a final rule or a completed general-permit program. EPA says the notice imposes no new requirements and does not change existing coal-ash regulations. Comments on the federal notice are due Oct. 13, 2026.

What EPA is considering

The possible general permit would temporarily cover qualifying coal-combustion-residuals units while a federal or approved-state permit is pending. The idea is tied to EPA’s separate April 13 proposal to allow certain site-specific alternatives involving groundwater monitoring, corrective action and closure requirements.

EPA is asking which categories of coal-ash units should qualify, what information operators should submit, what terms and conditions should apply and whether coverage should expire after a set period or end when an individual permit takes effect.

The agency also wants comments on whether individual requests for general-permit coverage should receive public review and whether EPA should make a case-by-case determination that coverage is appropriate for a particular unit.

Those decisions could affect the way utilities document compliance and the way regulators oversee work at coal-ash storage and disposal sites. They could also determine how much opportunity residents, environmental groups and other interested parties have to weigh in on site-specific decisions.

Why state permitting matters

The federal-state framework comes from the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. The law allows states to seek EPA approval to operate coal-ash permit programs if their requirements are at least as protective as the federal standards.

EPA remains responsible for permitting in states without an approved program and in Indian Country. In states with approved programs, the state becomes the permitting authority for covered coal-ash units.

A temporary general permit could give utilities and regulators an interim process while state programs are approved or revised. But the scope of that flexibility—including eligibility, deadlines, permit conditions and public participation—has not been settled.

Alabama is the immediate test

The federal notice came alongside EPA’s July 13 proposal to approve Alabama’s partial coal-ash permit program. EPA says the proposal would allow Alabama’s Department of Environmental Management to operate the program in place of the federal program after a final approval.

The action is preliminary. Alabama’s existing permits are not being approved through this decision. EPA says those permits would have to be reviewed and modified in full if the state program is ultimately approved, and the public would have an opportunity to comment on the entire permits.

EPA rejected a similar Alabama application in 2024, saying the submitted program did not meet the federal approval standard. The new proposal therefore provides an immediate test of how much permitting responsibility states may receive and how federal officials evaluate protections for groundwater, waterways and nearby communities.

Specialist reporting by E&E News identified 16 coal-ash dumps covered by the Alabama proposal and reported that EPA described the broader effort as a way to streamline permitting and support grid reliability. Those are the agency’s stated policy goals, not evidence that the proposal has weakened protections.

EPA will hold an online public hearing on the Alabama proposal at 9 a.m. Central time on Sept. 3, 2026. Written comments are due Sept. 14. Residents near Alabama coal-ash facilities, utilities and other interested parties can use that process to review the proposed program and raise concerns.

What residents and utilities should watch

Nothing changes immediately because of the July announcements. Existing coal-ash requirements remain in place while EPA reviews comments and Alabama proceeds through its proposed-approval process.

The practical consequences will depend on several unresolved decisions:

• Which facilities and coal-ash units qualify for temporary coverage.
• How long coverage lasts and what ends it.
• What groundwater monitoring, corrective-action and closure conditions apply.
• What information operators must provide.
• Whether individual coverage requests receive public comment.
• How states modify existing permits after a state program is approved.

EPA says it will review the comments and then decide whether to pursue a separate proposed rule establishing general-permit regulations. Until that happens, the agency is gathering input rather than granting a nationwide general permit.

For people living near coal-ash sites, future permit modifications, groundwater-monitoring results, corrective-action plans and closure decisions will matter more than the July announcement itself.

Sources

• Federal Register: Federal CCR Permit Program; General Permit Provisions
• EPA: Alabama Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program
• E&E News by POLITICO: EPA Eyes Granting Alabama Oversight of Coal Waste

The EPA signed the proposal on July 1, 2026, and the rule was published in the Federal Register on July 7. Written comments are due Aug. 21, 2026, in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-1212.

What would change

The proposal would revise 40 CFR 51.161, which currently sets federal minimums for public participation in state and local New Source Review programs. Under the proposal, those minimum public-participation requirements would no longer be required for minor NSR programs as a condition of approval in a state implementation plan.

State and local air agencies would instead decide whether, when and to what extent public participation is appropriate for a minor-source construction permit or a minor modification to an existing source. That could include decisions about public notice, access to permit information, comment periods and hearings.

Under the current federal baseline, the public generally must have access to relevant source information and the agency’s air-quality analysis, a 30-day period to submit comments and prominent notice in the affected area. The proposal would give air agencies discretion to change those procedures for minor NSR.

That does not mean public participation would disappear nationwide. States and local agencies could retain current requirements or adopt broader ones. If the rule is finalized and states revise their programs, residents could see greater differences from one jurisdiction to another.

What “minor” means

Minor New Source Review generally covers new or modified stationary sources that do not meet the regulatory thresholds for major-source permitting. A stationary source is a fixed facility or installation, such as a factory, power-related equipment or other industrial operation.

“Minor” is a regulatory classification, not a finding that a project has no local effect or that its emissions are trivial. Federal minor NSR rules do not establish one national list of every minor source or minor modification. State and local programs already differ in how they define and regulate sources below major-source thresholds.

The category can matter when communities are tracking smaller factories, gas-related facilities, backup generators or equipment associated with data centers. The proposal does not directly approve any particular project.

What would remain federally regulated

The EPA says the proposal would not change emissions standards, National Ambient Air Quality Standards or other applicable Clean Air Act requirements. A revised minor NSR program would still have to regulate construction and modifications as necessary to assure that national air-quality standards are achieved and maintained.

Major New Source Review would remain a separate, generally more prescriptive system. That includes Prevention of Significant Deterioration and nonattainment NSR requirements for major sources and major modifications.

The proposal also is not the same as changing Title V operating permits or National Environmental Policy Act review. Those are separate systems. The EPA said in the proposal that reducing public participation in a minor NSR authorization could affect how that authorization is later considered during some Title V oversight or petition processes.

Why the EPA says it is acting

The EPA describes the proposal as a way to recognize state and local discretion and reduce administrative burdens associated with a uniform federal process for minor sources. The agency argues that public participation can be tailored to local circumstances while substantive Clean Air Act requirements remain in place.

Supporters of the approach may view that flexibility as a way to avoid a one-size-fits-all process for projects below major-source thresholds. Critics may argue that shifting decisions about notice and hearings to individual agencies could make participation less predictable, reduce transparency or strain agencies with limited staff. Those are arguments about possible consequences, not established findings that the proposal would change air quality or approve projects.

What residents can do now

Nothing in the proposal immediately removes existing public-comment opportunities. It is a proposed rule, and the EPA must consider comments before deciding whether to revise, withdraw or finalize it. If finalized, states and local agencies would still need to use the state implementation-plan process to make any corresponding program changes.

Residents who want to comment should identify docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-1212 and submit written comments by Aug. 21, 2026. The Federal Register notice lists Regulations.gov as the EPA’s preferred submission method, along with other options.

People tracking a nearby project should also check the responsible state or local air agency. That agency handles the permit-specific notice, comment and hearing details, which may remain more extensive than the federal minimum or could change later if the proposal is finalized and the local program is revised.

Sources

• Federal Register proposed rule
• EPA New Source Review permitting overview

The announcement was made July 15, 2026, by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration. It concerns the CCL Container Hermitage facility at One Llodio Drive in the City of Hermitage, Mercer County. The project remains an announced expansion; the state announcement does not show that construction or hiring has been completed.

New production line planned

According to the Pennsylvania governor’s announcement and CCL Container, the company plans to install a new manufacturing production line. The company says the line will nearly double production capacity, helping it meet current customer orders and anticipated market growth.

Pennsylvania support totals $160,000. The package consists of a proposed $150,000 Pennsylvania First grant and a $10,000 WEDnetPA grant for worker training, according to the state announcement.

The planned job count is 30 new full-time positions over the next three years. The announcement also says 302 current positions will be retained. It does not provide wage levels, shift schedules, a hiring timetable or application information.

What it could mean locally

For Hermitage residents and workers, the announced project could create additional manufacturing openings at a major industrial facility while preserving hundreds of existing positions. The state identifies CCL Container as an aluminum can and bottle manufacturer with a presence in Mercer County spanning more than four decades.

Duane J. Piccirilli, president of the Hermitage Board of Commissioners, called CCL Container a valued member of the city’s business community and said the investment would bring new equipment and 30 full-time jobs. Those comments document local support for the announced project but do not establish its final economic effects.

Separate air-quality permitting record

A related but separate regulatory matter appears in the June 13, 2026 Pennsylvania Bulletin. The notice for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Plan Approval 43-00270R identifies CCL Container Hermitage’s aerosol division at One Llodio Drive. The application was received March 16, 2026.

The Bulletin notice concerns emissions-control equipment, not the new production line described in the expansion announcement. DEP said it intended to issue a plan approval covering installation of a new TANN regenerative thermal oxidizer, or RTO, to replace an existing oxidizer that had suffered a catastrophic failure. The notice also covers reconfiguration of exhaust from 11 aerosol manufacturing lines through three oxidizers: the two existing units and the replacement unit.

Under the described configuration, emissions from the 11 lines would be routed to an accumulator box, with controls directing flow to available oxidizers within their rated capacities. Existing baghouses would receive inside-liner emissions for particulate-matter control before that routing.

The notice says the facility would remain a synthetic-minor source for volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants. It includes stack-testing, recordkeeping, monitoring and operating requirements designed to keep the facility within applicable air-quality requirements. The notice opened a 30-day public-comment period beginning with its publication and described the process as occurring before issuance of the plan approval. It does not establish a net emissions increase for the announced expansion, and it should not be treated as proof that the new production project has begun operating.

What remains unknown

The state and company announcement does not specify a construction schedule, hiring process, wage levels or the date when the new line will be operational. Future company, city, state or regulatory updates will be needed to show how the project is implemented and when the proposed jobs become available.

Sources

• Office of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro: CCL Container expansion announcement, July 15, 2026
• Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol. 56, No. 24: DEP notice for Plan Approval 43-00270R
• CCL Container Investing $16.3M in Hermitage Facility Expansion

The agreement, announced June 24, 2026, involves the Environmental Protection Agency, the Justice Department, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and Chemours. EPA and DOJ describe it as the first comprehensive federal settlement resolving enforcement claims against a major PFAS manufacturer. The proposed consent decree was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, but it is not final until the court approves it.

What the proposed agreement would require

The settlement would require Chemours to pay a $22.5 million civil penalty and carry out a government-supervised, multi-year PFAS mitigation program valued at $90 million.

It also includes estimated injunctive-relief costs. About $60 million would go toward pollution controls at Washington Works in West Virginia. Approximately $280 million would support treated or alternative drinking water for communities near Chemours facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey.

The more-than-$450 million figure is therefore a combined estimate of the civil penalty, mitigation funding and compliance-related work. It is not a promise that more than $450 million will be paid directly to residents or public water systems.

Chemours would test drinking water and provide treatment or alternative water to communities near its West Virginia and New Jersey facilities when they meet the agreement’s facility-specific requirements. The settlement does not mean every nearby resident or public water system automatically qualifies.

Facilities, rivers and alleged violations

The proposed settlement covers Washington Works in West Virginia; Fayetteville Works in North Carolina; and Chambers Works and Parlin in New Jersey.

Federal allegations describe PFAS releases into the Ohio River in West Virginia, the Cape Fear River in North Carolina and the Delaware River in New Jersey. The alleged violations involve the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act.

The EPA summary says the allegations include discharges without required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, discharges that violated permit terms, failures to meet permit conditions, problems involving TSCA records and enclosed processes, and hazardous-waste acceptance or storage issues. These remain allegations addressed through a proposed consent decree rather than a final court judgment.

Controls Chemours would install

At Washington Works, the agreement calls for 14 projects to reduce PFAS in wastewater, stormwater and groundwater. Chemours would also be required to control GenX releases from each covered facility with an efficiency of at least 99%.

The company would implement enhanced leak-detection and repair programs, conduct engineering reviews to identify additional PFAS releases and certify compliance with hazardous-waste-storage requirements.

At Fayetteville Works, Chemours would evaluate options and install controls to reduce PFAS and other toxic releases based on recommendations from an independent engineering firm. The principal control and mitigation programs are expected to run for 15 years.

The agreement would allow Chemours to continue manufacturing some PFAS for critical commercial and military applications, including uses for which substitutes are not readily available. It is not a complete production ban.

Why residents should not assume they qualify for water service

The proposed drinking-water provisions are tied to communities near specific Chemours facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey. Eligibility and the form of assistance will depend on facility location, testing, implementation plans and the final court order.

Residents should watch for facility-specific notices about sampling, treatment systems or alternative-water supplies rather than assuming the settlement provides a uniform benefit throughout a state. The largest direct public-health component is the estimated $280 million for drinking-water protection near the West Virginia and New Jersey facilities.

Why the settlement is still pending

The public-comment period ran from June 29 through July 29, 2026. That period has closed, but the Southern District of West Virginia must still review the proposed consent decree and decide whether to approve it.

North Carolina officials criticized the agreement, arguing that it does not do enough for residents near Fayetteville Works. That criticism is an attributed position from state officials, not an adjudicated finding. Reuters reported that North Carolina had pursued a separate 2019 agreement with Chemours, while New Jersey announced a separate, broader environmental settlement involving Chemours, DuPont and Corteva in 2025.

The federal proposal also does not resolve every PFAS contamination claim or determine DuPont’s liability for past pollution. The covered facilities were previously owned by DuPont.

What to watch next

The next major checkpoint is court action on the consent decree. Residents, local officials and water providers should also watch for implementation plans, drinking-water test results, community notices, treatment-project schedules and details about how the $90 million mitigation program is allocated.

Sources

• EPA settlement announcement
• U.S. Justice Department settlement release
• Reuters report
• Associated Press report

KDHE approved the Remedial Excavation Work Plan on April 6, 2026. The plan identifies July through September as the preferred period for excavation because typically drier conditions may reduce complications related to precipitation.

The proposed field work is expected to take approximately one to two days. As of August 2, 2026, the KDHE materials reviewed for this article do not confirm that the excavation has begun or been completed. The timing remains dependent on project and site conditions.

What is planned at the site

The site is the 320-acre former Amoco refinery at 1100 North 12th Street on the west side of Neodesha near the Fall River. An oil refinery operated there from approximately 1897 to 1970.

KDHE says past petroleum releases contaminated soil and groundwater within the former refinery footprint, and that contaminated groundwater migrated onto some residential and industrial properties in Neodesha. The agency identifies volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds and heavy metals, including lead and arsenic, among the contaminants associated with the site.

KDHE’s Identified Sites List records the site as active and identifies semiannual groundwater monitoring and environmental-use controls. That registry warns that its underlying data were last updated June 3, 2021. The current KDHE refinery page and the March 2026 work plan therefore provide the more relevant records for the 2026 schedule.

Safeguards required during excavation

The work plan requires advance notification to KDHE before excavation begins. It also calls for sampling to characterize excavated waste and sampling of backfill material.

Contractors must follow health-and-safety procedures and maintain spill-response measures during the work. Those requirements address the handling, testing and placement of material during the field phase; the scheduled work alone does not establish a new public-health emergency or a new exposure finding.

The larger cleanup decision is still pending

KDHE’s current refinery page says a Corrective Action Study is anticipated for submission in late July through August 2026. That is an agency projection, not confirmation that the study was submitted by August 2. A dated filing or agency posting would be needed to verify submission.

The study would not itself be the final cleanup remedy. KDHE says it will review the revised study and receive community input before issuing a final Corrective Action Decision. The agency’s site information states that the final remedy remains undetermined.

For Neodesha residents, the immediate consequence is continued monitoring of an active contaminated site and the possibility of a brief excavation operation during the July-through-September window. The next developments to watch are a dated notice that field work is scheduled or underway, the Corrective Action Study submission, KDHE’s review and any public input opportunity connected to the eventual decision.

Sources

• KDHE: Neodesha Refinery (Former Amoco Refinery)
• KDHE Bureau of Environmental Remediation Identified Site Detail — Project C310300027

The differences matter to residents because the affected organizations support public broadcasting, emergency communications, environmental rulemaking input, Native student advocacy and professional licensing. The next major decision point is the 2027 legislative session.

What changed on July 1

Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed bills that would have extended the statutory lives of several agencies and advisory bodies, including OETA, the Oklahoma Advisory Council on Indian Education and four DEQ advisory councils. The Legislature did not complete successful overrides for those entities before the 2026 session ended.

Oklahoma’s sunset law sets expiration dates for agencies and boards so lawmakers can periodically review whether they should continue. July 1 marked the operative sunset date, but the legal and practical consequences differ according to each entity’s governing law, funding and post-sunset provisions.

OETA has funding through fiscal year 2027

OETA did not stop broadcasting on July 1. The Legislature’s fiscal year 2027 budget included $2.84 million for the agency, according to KOSU, and OETA has said it expects to remain fully operational through June 30, 2027.

OETA is Oklahoma’s public television network and the state’s only broadcaster of PBS programming. It also distributes PBS Kids content and carries Oklahoma-specific educational programming, including shows produced with Oklahoma State University.

OETA also partners in distributing WARN and AMBER Alerts and emergency messages to people in all 77 Oklahoma counties, including when cellular networks are down.

The key question is what happens after the one-year operating runway. If lawmakers take no action by July 1, 2027, the sunset consequences described in the state framework include transfer of OETA’s physical assets to the Office of Management and Enterprise Services, transfer of remaining money to the state General Revenue Fund and abolition of personnel positions.

Those are potential consequences of inaction, not actions already completed. For viewers, educators and communities, July 1, 2027, is the important near-term date for OETA’s legal and operational future.

DEQ councils ended, but public input is being reworked

Four DEQ advisory councils lost their statutory status on July 1. Their work covered water quality, solid waste, radiation and hazardous-waste-related rules, public hearings and stakeholder expertise.

DEQ told KGOU it plans to use informal workgroups made up of current council members and other stakeholders to discuss proposed rules. The agency also plans meetings four to six weeks before Environmental Quality Board meetings and added public-comment opportunities during regular board meetings.

That approach preserves avenues for public participation, but it is an administrative alternative rather than the same statutory advisory structure that existed before July 1. Residents, businesses and environmental groups will need to follow DEQ and Environmental Quality Board notices for future meetings and comment opportunities.

Indian education council’s statutory operation ended

The Oklahoma Advisory Council on Indian Education, established in 2010, advised state officials on Native student education, made recommendations and analyzed data about how state education agencies served Native American students. Its statutory operation ended July 1.

In his veto message for House Bill 3006, Stitt said the council appeared inactive, lacked transparency and overlapped with the State Department of Education’s Office of American Indian Education. Those were the governor’s stated reasons for rejecting the extension, not independent findings established by the veto document alone.

Council Chair Corey Bunch, the Cherokee Nation’s chief of staff, disputed that characterization. Bunch told KOSU that the council met regularly with the state schools superintendent, had no operating cost and gave Native students and their priorities a voice. Bunch also cited about 150,000 Native American children attending Oklahoma public schools.

The practical question now is how that advocacy and recommendation function will be handled without the council’s former statutory authority.

Chiropractic licensing continues during a wind-down period

The Board of Chiropractic Examiners also faced a sunset after Stitt vetoed House Bill 3003, which would have extended the board through July 1, 2031. The bill passed the House 87-1 and the Senate 46-0 before the veto. The House overrode the veto 88-3 on May 6, 2026, but the official legislative record ends with the measure sent to the Senate, where no completed override action is recorded.

The board licenses chiropractors, oversees examinations and can discipline practitioners who violate state law. Its executive director told KGOU that the board has a one-year wind-down period and will continue regular operations during that period.

For patients and chiropractors, licensing and oversight have not stopped immediately. The board’s longer-term status remains unresolved.

What happens next

The 2027 Legislature will be the next major decision point for OETA, the chiropractic board and any effort to recreate, consolidate or replace the other sunset bodies. Lawmakers could extend or otherwise change an entity’s authority, but no such outcome has been decided.

For residents, the central question is whether services continue under the same institutions, move into other agencies or face a later funding and governance decision. OETA’s July 1, 2027, deadline is the clearest near-term date, while DEQ’s new public-input process and the future of Native student advocacy will develop through administrative and legislative action.

Sources

• KGOU: Oklahoma agencies and advisory boards facing sunset
• KOSU: Is OETA going away? Your questions answered
• Oklahoma Legislature: HB 3003 bill history
• Governor Stitt's 2026 Vetoed Legislation

The draft synthetic-minor air-construction permit, CP-50000422, covers 11 additional natural-gas-fired turbines at the facility at 4000 S. Pine Street in Spartanburg. SCDES extended the comment period by 30 days because of significant public interest. The agency’s June 25 availability session and public hearing were held at Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium after SCDES changed the venue to accommodate more attendees. The hearing date and project scope did not change.

What the draft air permit covers

Valara is seeking permission to generate additional electricity on site using 11 natural-gas-fired turbines. The application also seeks to remove Title V avoidance limits established in an earlier construction permit, CP-50000316.

SCDES issued CP-50000316 on Sept. 17, 2025, for 24 permanent natural-gas-fired generators. The agency amended that permit on April 21, 2026, to include 21 temporary generators subject to operating limits. The new draft permit concerns additional equipment and remains separate from the earlier permit decision.

Emissions are estimates, not measured pollution

SCDES’s amended public notice lists the following potential increases in controlled emissions from the proposed project:

• 142 tons per year of particulate matter
• 162 tons per year of nitrogen oxides
• 134 tons per year of carbon monoxide
• 40 tons per year of volatile organic compounds
• 8.5 tons per year of sulfur dioxide
• 7.3 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants

Those figures are permitting estimates for potential controlled emissions from the proposed project. They are not measurements of current pollution and do not establish that the listed amounts will occur.

The notice also lists total potential controlled emissions for the facility, including sources covered by earlier permits. Those totals include 223 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, 202 tons of carbon monoxide, 61 tons of volatile organic compounds and 19.7 tons of hazardous air pollutants, among other pollutants.

What happens next at SCDES

SCDES says permitting staff will review the comments and other materials before issuing a decision. The agency’s project page, updated July 27, says the application remains under review and that there is no current timetable for a decision.

If the draft permit is approved, SCDES says the facility would be a major source for Title V applicability purposes. Valara would then have to submit a Part 70 operating-permit application within 12 months after becoming subject to South Carolina’s Title V Operating Permit Program.

The expired comment period does not mean the permit was approved. SCDES has not announced a final permit decision, and the agency says comments received during the public-comment period will be reviewed and considered before a permit decision is made.

A separate utility-siting dispute is pending

The air-permit review is running alongside a separate proceeding before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina. PSC docket 2026-158-E was filed June 26 by Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy against Valara Holdings, LLC.

In their petition, the organizations allege that Valara is constructing a 450-megawatt natural-gas-fired power plant to supply the data center. They ask the PSC to rule that the facility is a “major utility facility” under South Carolina’s Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act.

The petitioners argue that a facility exceeding the law’s 75-megawatt threshold requires a certificate of environmental compatibility and public convenience and necessity before construction can continue. That is the petitioners’ legal position, not a final ruling by the commission. The PSC case remains pending.

The PSC proceeding addresses whether state utility-siting approval is required. It is distinct from SCDES’s question of whether the proposed equipment can receive an air-construction permit under state and federal air-quality requirements. A separate county land-use lawsuit also challenges how the broader project was reviewed locally.

What South Carolina residents should watch

The next consequential step is SCDES’s eventual decision on CP-50000422. The agency must consider comments submitted by the July 31 deadline, but it has not said when that review will end.

Residents also can watch the PSC docket for additional filings, hearings or an order addressing the petitioners’ request for a declaratory ruling and possible action to halt construction pending the utility-siting question. Neither the air permit nor the requested certificate has been finally decided in the records identified here.

Sources

• SCDES amended public notice for Valara Holdings air permit
• South Carolina PSC docket 2026-158-E

The update matters for residents planning to swim, boat or fish near the listed lakes and dams, as well as people bringing pets or livestock to the water. DEQ advises visitors to check current conditions before traveling, avoid suspected blue-green algae, keep pets away from affected water and rinse with fresh water after contact.

What DEQ’s advisory means

Lake Tschida was posted as an advisory on July 28, according to DEQ’s statewide update issued July 30. An advisory means a bloom is present in portions of a waterbody. It is not a closure or a determination that the entire lake is unsafe.

A warning reflects a more extensive condition: the bloom covers a significant portion of the waterbody and toxin levels exceed the recreational threshold. DEQ’s current list includes four advisories and three warnings, so the seven waterbodies do not all have the same status.

The seven waterbodies on the current list

DEQ’s list was current as of July 29, 2026:

• Advisories: Devils Lake, Ramsey/Benson counties, posted July 16; Lake Brekken, McLean County, posted July 16; Lake Darling, Renville County, posted June 29; and Lake Tschida, Grant County, posted July 28.
• Warnings: Bowman-Haley Dam, Bowman County, posted June 29; South Golden Lake, Steele County, posted June 29; and Warsing Dam, Eddy County, posted July 1.

Prairie Public reported July 31 that Lake Tschida was the seventh report of a harmful algal bloom this year. That description refers to reports during 2026; DEQ’s count is the number of waterbodies currently under active advisories or warnings.

What residents should do

DEQ says harmful algal blooms, also called HABs or blue-green algae, can develop quickly in warm, sunny weather. Some blooms produce cyanotoxins that can make people, pets and livestock sick if the water is swallowed or touched. That does not mean every bloom contains toxins or that contact will necessarily cause illness.

Residents should:

• Check DEQ’s current HAB conditions before traveling to a listed waterbody.
• Do not swim in or drink from water suspected of containing blue-green algae.
• Keep pets away from affected water and prevent livestock from using it as a drinking source.
• Bring plenty of fresh water for people and animals.
• Rinse people and animals with fresh water as soon as possible after contact.

North Dakota State University Extension reported June 29 that cyanobacteria growth is accelerated by warm to hot temperatures and that some cyanobacteria can produce toxins harmful to people, livestock and wildlife. Blooms may appear as scum or colored material on or just below the water’s surface, but appearance alone does not establish whether toxins are present.

How to report a suspected bloom

DEQ relies on public reports to identify possible blooms and determine where additional sampling or updates are needed. Suspected blooms can be reported by calling 701-328-5210, using the state HAB reporting tool or emailing DEQ-HAB@nd.gov.

DEQ posts HAB updates from May 1 through Dec. 31. Because bloom conditions can change quickly, residents should verify the current status before each visit rather than relying on an earlier advisory or warning.

Sources

• North Dakota DEQ harmful algal bloom advisory update, July 30, 2026
• Blue-green algae advisory issued for Lake Tschida
• NDSU Extension: Summer heat brings increased risk of toxic cyanobacteria

The Virginia Waste Management Board, acting through the Department of Environmental Quality, published a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action to consider changes to rules governing solid-waste facilities. Public comments are due August 12, 2026. The notice begins the regulatory process; it is not a final regulation and does not create new enforceable requirements.

Separately, Virginia’s enacted fiscal 2027 budget provides $10.627 million for Shoosmith cleanup work, authorizes DEQ to transfer up to $3 million from the Virginia Environmental Emergency Response Fund if that appropriation is exhausted, and requires a broader evaluation of funding and oversight options by October 5, 2026.

What Virginia is reviewing

The regulatory notice covers 9VAC20-70, the Financial Assurance Regulations for Solid Waste Disposal, Transfer and Treatment Facilities, and could also lead to related changes in 9VAC20-81, the state’s broader Solid Waste Management Regulations.

The stated purpose is to determine whether financial assurance is sufficient to cover leachate pretreatment systems, facility closure, post-closure care, corrective action and remediation. The Virginia Register of Regulations says the financial-assurance criteria in Part III of 9VAC20-70 were last substantively amended in 2001.

Because the rules apply to covered facilities statewide, any eventual changes could affect landfill operators, owners and the financial institutions that provide bonds or other forms of assurance. The notice itself does not establish new requirements. It is an early step that could lead to a later proposed rule, public review and a final regulatory decision.

Shoosmith’s projected costs exceed its bonds

Shoosmith’s owners filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in June 2025. A court-appointed trustee is overseeing closure and post-closure operations using the proceeds from two financial-assurance bonds totaling approximately $19.3 million, according to a Chesterfield County update.

The trustee estimates that capital, operating and post-closure-care costs could total about $173 million through 2056. That is a projected long-term cost estimate, not money already spent, and the $19.3 million figure refers to the two bonds identified in the county’s update rather than all possible sources of recovery.

Chesterfield County said that since 2024, after the county determined untreated leachate had been discharged into its sewer system, the landfill has hauled leachate off site for treatment after the industrial wastewater discharge permit was suspended. The response also involves leachate collection and testing, gas management, monitoring and eventual closure.

County officials said the remaining funds supporting the current response are projected to be exhausted between October and November. The county expects the fiscal 2027 allocation to support operations through June 30, 2027, including work to cap the landfill and limit additional water infiltration.

What the budget provides

Item 368 of the enacted 2026-28 budget provides $10.627 million in fiscal 2027 to DEQ, in collaboration with Chesterfield County, to address ongoing environmental issues at Shoosmith. The authorized activities include operations and monitoring, leachate testing and collection, hauling and treatment, gas management and facility closure.

DEQ may disburse the money as reimbursements to the bankruptcy trustee, contract directly with a private contractor or local government, or reimburse a successor to the trustee. The budget says DEQ is not required to spend the appropriation, and any unspent balance may carry forward and be reappropriated.

If the general-fund appropriation is exhausted, DEQ may transfer up to $3 million from the Virginia Environmental Emergency Response Fund for the same purposes. Those are spending authorities in the enacted budget, not evidence that all of the money has already been spent.

Next steps for residents and officials

Virginia residents, landfill operators and other interested parties can submit comments on the financial-assurance rulemaking through August 12, 2026. The Virginia Register notice lists the deadline and the rules under review.

The budget also directs the Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources, in consultation with the Secretary of Finance, DEQ and the Department of Planning and Budget, to evaluate options and funding mechanisms for resolving ongoing issues at Shoosmith.

The evaluation must consider the appropriate level of state and Chesterfield County resources, federal funding opportunities and other response funding. It also must examine financial-assurance mechanisms, landfill inspection criteria and legislative or regulatory options for ensuring sufficient oversight.

A written report with recommendations is due to the chairs of four legislative committees by October 5, 2026. That is a reporting milestone, not a guarantee that Virginia will adopt a particular funding model or final set of landfill rules.

For now, the state has authorized near-term funding for Shoosmith while considering whether Virginia’s broader financial safeguards and inspection standards are sufficient to prevent similar long-term cleanup costs from shifting to public resources.

Sources

• Virginia Regulatory Town Hall financial-assurance rulemaking
• Virginia budget, HB30 Item 368
• Chesterfield County Shoosmith landfill update
• Virginia Register of Regulations, Volume 42, Issue 24

More than 100 people attended the hearing held by the Utah Division of Water Quality. Opponents outnumbered supporters in testimony, raising concerns about water quality, wetlands, migratory-bird habitat, public health, the lake’s declining condition and possible future data-center growth.

The hearing was not a vote or final agency action. The Division of Water Quality must review the written and oral comments, the draft permit and the administrative record before the agency issues a final permit decision.

What the proposed permit would allow

The applicant is the Tooele Valley Public Infrastructure District, or TVPID. The proposed facility is the TVPID RO Water Treatment Plant, identified in state records under UPDES permit number UT0026409.

The plant would be located near the Burmester I-80 interchange in Tooele County. According to the state’s permit notice, it would treat groundwater to provide potable water for a newly organized Inland Port development intended to serve warehouse distribution centers, data centers and commercial facilities.

Reverse-osmosis treatment would produce a concentrated reject stream. The draft permit would authorize continuous discharge of up to 0.26 million gallons per day through an existing drainage channel. The proposed route runs through unclassified waters and transitional waters toward Gilbert Bay of the Great Salt Lake.

Because the discharge would be new, the state also included a Level II antidegradation review in the public-comment process. The permit notice identifies the wastewater as concentrated reverse-osmosis reject water and directs the public to the draft permit and fact sheet for technical details.

Why the hearing drew attention

The proposed plant is tied to a larger Inland Port development, not an approved data center. KSL reported that it was unclear whether a specific data-center project has been proposed for the site or whether the business park is promoting its ability to host one in the future.

That distinction matters. The permit record describes a development involving warehouses, data centers and commercial facilities, but the July 27 hearing did not establish that a particular data center has been approved or definitively committed to the location.

At the hearing, residents and conservation advocates raised concerns about the proposed discharge’s effects on wetlands and the lake’s southern shore. They also questioned the composition of the concentrated wastewater and the potential effects of additional industrial development in an area facing water scarcity and habitat pressures.

Those were public comments and concerns, not final findings by the Division of Water Quality. The agency has not concluded that the discharge would contaminate the lake, harm wildlife, deplete an aquifer or create public-health effects.

How Utah’s data-center policy fits

The permit review is taking place soon after Gov. Spencer Cox issued Executive Order 2026-03 on May 29. The order created a statewide Data Center Framework and directed covered executive-branch agencies to follow it in matters related to data centers.

The framework calls for protecting the Great Salt Lake and other water resources, ensuring that water consumption is not increased and protecting water quality. It also addresses wildlife impacts, utility ratepayers, energy infrastructure and transparent, meaningful opportunities for public comment.

The order does not automatically approve or block the TVPID permit. Instead, it provides statewide policy context for how executive agencies are expected to evaluate data-center-related development and its effects on water, wildlife, utilities and communities.

The Legislature also passed H.B. 76, the Data Center Water Transparency Amendments, during the 2026 session. The law directs land-use authorities to issue certain notices before approving a new large data center. It also requires certain large data centers to notify their water provider and submit reports to the Division of Water Rights before construction and annually after operations begin. The law includes disclosure and enforcement provisions.

H.B. 76 does not decide the TVPID wastewater permit. Its relevance is that it establishes a broader state policy of notice, reporting and public access around water use by certain large data centers.

What happens next

The Division of Water Quality’s extended public notice set the written-comment deadline at the close of business July 27, 2026. It says all comments will be considered in making the final decision and answered as required by Utah administrative rules.

The director of the Division of Water Quality will issue the final permit decision after reviewing the comments and administrative record. Until that decision is issued, the plant is not cleared to discharge.

Residents tracking the project should look for the final permit decision, the agency’s responses to public comments and any changes to the draft discharge limits or conditions in the Division of Water Quality’s UPDES records.

The decision will provide an early test of how Utah applies its new data-center framework to a development that combines industrial growth, groundwater treatment and a proposed discharge route toward the Great Salt Lake.

Sources

• Utah Division of Water Quality public hearing notice and comment-period extension
• Utah News Dispatch report republished by KPCW
• Utah Executive Order 2026-03
• Utah Legislature 2026 passed-legislation summary

In letters dated July 13, DHS confirmed that ICE will not use either property as a detention center. The sites are at 3501 Mountain Road in Upper Bern Township, Berks County, and 51 Rausch Creek Road in Tremont Township, Schuylkill County.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection confirmed the development on July 22. DEP said its administrative orders remain in effect and that the properties must continue to comply with water, sewer, sewage-planning and other environmental requirements.

What changed

The orders were issued March 5 after plans emerged to convert the warehouses into detention facilities. State officials and local communities had raised concerns about the potential demands on water systems, wastewater treatment, emergency services and other public infrastructure.

DHS’s withdrawal of the appeals means the proposed detention-center use will not move forward. The federal letters instead describe continued commercial-warehouse use at existing or previously approved water and sewer levels.

That does not mean the properties are permanently closed or barred from all future commercial activity. DEP’s follow-up letters say any use beyond the commercial-warehouse plans described by DHS would require additional sewage planning, permitting, certification or drinking-water approvals.

What remains in force

At the Upper Bern Township property, DHS said sewage would remain within the existing limit of 8,000 gallons per day and that it would seek approval to use the existing well. At the Tremont Township property, DHS described sewage use of up to 6,000 gallons per day and potable-water use of up to 7,675 gallons per day.

DEP said it plans to inspect both properties to confirm that the federal plans match actual operations. Changes to pumping rates, water treatment or sewage handling could require additional approvals under the state orders.

Why local officials are still watching

The end of the detention proposal does not settle every local question. Residents and officials still face uncertainty about future warehouse operations, traffic, utility capacity, emergency-service planning and the property-tax consequences of how the sites are used.

Spotlight PA reported that the Berks County property purchase affected school-district planning and raised questions about property-tax revenue. Those issues remain unsettled because the warehouses’ future commercial use has not been fully resolved.

The Associated Press reported that the proposed facilities had drawn concern over the scale of the operations and their potential impact on local water and wastewater systems. Those infrastructure issues remain relevant even though the detention use has been abandoned.

The next developments to watch are DEP inspections, any permit applications for the existing well or other water systems, and township or county actions tied to future warehouse operations.

Sources

• Pennsylvania governor's office confirmation
• Spotlight PA local reporting

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed Executive Order 62 on July 14, 2026. The order applies statewide to facilities or groups of facilities that consume or can consume at least 50 megawatts and meet the state’s definition of a data center.

What the order covers

The order defines covered data centers as facilities used to house computer servers or related computing and telecommunications equipment for storing, processing, distributing or managing data. Facilities primarily used for manufacturing, research, education or medical care are excluded.

The immediate pause applies to certain discretionary state permits, approvals, licenses or similar permissions under the Department of Environmental Conservation. DEC must hold covered applications in abeyance when they were pending or may later be filed but had not been determined complete before the order took effect. DEC may also ask applicants to identify whether a permit involves a covered data center before deciding that an application is complete.

That distinction matters. The order does not cancel every data-center project, stop all construction or create a blanket statewide ban. Local-government permits, approvals and zoning are expressly outside the state permit pause. A project’s status depends on its size, primary use, permit history and local approvals.

Why state officials acted

The order directs the Department of Public Service to begin a formal environmental review examining energy demand, water use and quality, air quality, effects on disadvantaged communities and noise. The review will produce a Generic Environmental Impact Statement and findings statement.

State officials say the review is needed because large computing facilities can require substantial electricity and water. The executive order also cites risks that utility customers could face if grid infrastructure is built for projects that are delayed, reduced or canceled. The state’s stated goal is to prevent those costs from being shifted broadly to other New Yorkers.

The Empire State Development announcement describes the process as potentially lasting up to a year. The order itself ties the pause to completion of the final environmental review, so the exact duration is not guaranteed.

What communities and utilities should watch

Empire State Development has 60 days from July 14 to create a Community Investment Framework for local governments and other public entities negotiating with data-center developers. The framework is expected to address infrastructure, public services, labor standards, local hiring, workforce development and transparency.

The order also tells DPS to consider a New York Grid Acceleration Fund, including possible upfront developer contributions, support for grid improvements, clean-energy or storage investments and protections against stranded costs. Those ideas are not adopted rules. DPS must still develop and consider the details.

DPS is directed to form a data-center interconnection working group within 60 days, while transmission owners must report to the Public Service Commission within 90 days on how they study system impacts and estimate costs. DEC must also assess whether additional rules or guidance are needed for water withdrawals and report within 12 months.

The Associated Press reported that the pause has drawn opposition from the data-center industry, which warned that delayed investment and jobs could move elsewhere. The dispute now centers on who should pay for new grid capacity and community infrastructure, and how New York can pursue technology development without leaving residents with higher utility, environmental or public-service costs.

The next major milestones are the DPS environmental-review process, ESD’s community-benefit framework and proposed approaches to interconnection and cost allocation.

Sources

• New York Executive Order No. 62
• Empire State Development announcement
• Associated Press report

The rules do not eliminate the Endangered Species Act, and they do not immediately remove protections from currently threatened species. Their main effect is to change how federal officials will write protections for future threatened species and evaluate possible exclusions from critical-habitat designations.

Future threatened species will receive species-specific rules

One rule ends the future use of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s blanket Section 4(d) rule for newly listed or future reclassified threatened species under the agency’s jurisdiction. The blanket rule generally extended most prohibitions that apply to endangered species to threatened species unless the agency adopted a different species-specific rule.

Under the final rule, future threatened species will instead receive protections tailored to their individual conservation needs. The Federal Register says each species-specific rule will include a determination that the protections are necessary and advisable, along with consideration of conservation and economic impacts. Proposed species-specific rules will continue to provide an opportunity for public comment.

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on July 21 and takes effect August 20, 2026. It is prospective: The agency says it does not alter current protections for threatened species already covered by a blanket rule or an existing species-specific rule. Any later change to current protections would require separate agency action, public notice and comment.

Critical-habitat exclusions will use a revised process

The second July 17 action revises how the Service evaluates exclusions from critical-habitat designations under Section 4(b)(2). The revised process directs the agency to weigh economic, national-security and other relevant impacts when considering whether an area should be excluded.

The rule also says an area may be excluded when the exclusion would not cause the species to become extinct. That standard could matter in future decisions involving federal permits, public lands, transportation and infrastructure projects, energy development, mining, drilling, farms, ranches, private landowners and conservation efforts.

The change does not automatically approve a project, remove environmental review or guarantee that a particular area will be excluded from critical habitat. Each decision will depend on the species, the location, the evidence before the agency and any legal challenges.

A separate rule changes the definition of “harm”

The July 17 actions should not be confused with a separate rule announced July 10 by the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries. That rule rescinds the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, including the definition’s treatment of habitat-related conduct, and is scheduled to take effect September 14, 2026.

The Associated Press reported that the separate change could affect how federal officials evaluate habitat-related conduct connected to logging, drilling, mining and other development. It is a distinct regulatory action, not part of the July 17 Section 4(d) and critical-habitat revisions.

What to watch next

The next developments will come through species-specific Section 4(d) proposals, future critical-habitat decisions, implementation guidance, additional proposed ESA revisions and possible litigation. For landowners, businesses, public agencies and conservation groups, the practical question will be how the new standards are applied in individual cases rather than whether every current project changes immediately.

Sources

• Federal Register final rule
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule overview
• Associated Press report

This proposed permit would cover discharges associated with applying biological or chemical pesticides that leave residue to waters of Alabama—including pesticide applications made in or over waters or near water where pesticide contact with water is unavoidable. (This is a proposal, not a final permit decision yet.)

What “proposed reissuance” means for residents

Because ADEM is seeking public comments, the permit terms could still change before ADEM makes a final determination. ADEM says it will consider all written comments (and any public hearing record, if requested) before making its final decision.

Where to review the draft materials

ADEM says copies of the draft permit (along with conditions/limitations and a fact sheet, as applicable) are available for public inspection electronically and also at ADEM’s Montgomery office by appointment during weekday business hours (Monday–Friday, except legal holidays).

How to submit comments (deadline mechanics)

ADEM is accepting written comments for 30 days following the publication date of the notice. The notice is dated July 17, 2026, and ADEM states that all comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the comment period.

Why this statewide permit can matter in Moulton

The proposed general permit would apply across all waters of the State of Alabama. Even though Moulton is not where the permit would be “issued,” statewide rules can still matter locally through downstream connections—especially for waters that link to larger streams and rivers.

If you apply pesticides as part of property maintenance, landscaping, pest control work, land management, or other activities near water, you’ll want to review the draft requirements for the permit’s covered pesticide use patterns.

What the draft permit covers (and what you can comment on)

The draft language ties coverage to specific pesticide use patterns, including:

• mosquito and other flying insect pest control
• weed and algae control
• nuisance animal control
• forest canopy or other area-wide pest control

A major focus of the draft is what operators must do to manage pesticide-related water impacts. Key items readers may want to scrutinize in the draft include:

• Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP): A PDMP must be developed, maintained, and implemented for each pesticide use pattern, for operators required to submit a notice of intent (NOI).
• Adverse-incident reporting: The draft permit includes twenty-four (24) hour notification requirements and a thirty (30) day written report for certain reportable adverse incidents.
• Annual reporting: Operators required to submit an NOI must complete an annual report no later than February 15 (covering the previous calendar year).

What happens next

After ADEM reviews written comments (and any public hearing record, if one is requested), the agency will make a final determination. ADEM also states it will develop responses to comments and post them with the final permit decision.

Sources

• ADEM notice: Proposed reissuance of pesticide-related NPDES General Permit ALG870000 (comment instructions + deadline)