The proposal, announced July 1 and published in the Federal Register on July 7, would revise Clean Air Act rules for state and local minor New Source Review programs. Public comments are due August 21, 2026.

What the proposal covers

Minor New Source Review, or minor NSR, applies to new minor stationary sources and minor modifications to existing stationary sources. “Minor” is a regulatory category tied to emissions and permitting requirements; it does not mean a facility produces no pollution or poses no health concern.

Under the proposed rule, EPA would recognize that state and local air agencies may determine whether, when and to what extent public participation is needed for minor NSR permits. Those programs are generally administered by state or local authorities under federally approved State Implementation Plans.

Minor NSR programs already differ across the country because federal requirements are less prescriptive than the rules governing major-source permitting. If EPA finalizes the proposal, those differences could become more consequential for residents and businesses seeking information about qualifying permits.

What would not change immediately

The proposal is not a final rule, and it does not itself approve, deny or modify any individual permit. Existing state permitting practices would remain in place while EPA considers public comments.

EPA says applicable statutory and regulatory air-quality requirements would continue to apply if the rule is finalized. The agency also says National Ambient Air Quality Standards and emissions standards would remain in force. The proposal does not directly revise greenhouse-gas limits or climate standards.

The immediate issue is procedural: who decides when the public receives notice, whether a hearing is held and how much opportunity residents have to submit comments on a minor-source permit.

Why public participation could vary

EPA describes the proposal as a way to reduce administrative burdens and speed permitting for projects that qualify for minor NSR review. The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy has also pointed to potential effects on small entities, including less procedural delay for some projects.

For communities, the practical result could depend more heavily on state and local rules. Some jurisdictions might continue offering advance notice, hearings or formal comment periods for many minor permits. Others could provide fewer opportunities, shorter timelines or different notice methods, depending on how their approved programs operate.

That does not mean public participation would disappear nationwide. It means the amount and timing of participation could become more dependent on decisions made by individual air agencies.

Why the issue is drawing attention

Recent disputes over minor permits show why public visibility matters. Inside Climate News has reported on environmental groups challenging air-pollution permits connected to data-center projects in Texas, including concerns about pollution controls and the public’s ability to scrutinize proposed facilities.

That reporting does not establish what EPA’s proposal would do in Texas or any other state. It illustrates, however, why notice and comment procedures can become contested when a project is classified as a minor source but still raises local pollution or health concerns.

What happens next

EPA is accepting comments on the proposal through August 21, 2026, under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-1212. The Federal Register page showed 426 comments when accessed, but that count can change as submissions are posted.

The agency must review the comments before deciding whether to finalize, revise or withdraw the proposal. If a final rule is issued, states and local air agencies would still need to operate within applicable Clean Air Act and air-quality requirements.

Residents who want to track the issue should monitor their state or local air agency, not only EPA’s national rulemaking pages. If the federal proposal is finalized, the practical effect will depend on how each jurisdiction interprets and revises its approved minor NSR program.

Sources

• Federal Register proposed rule
• EPA proposal announcement
• SBA Office of Advocacy analysis
• Inside Climate News Texas permitting report

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

If adopted, the extension could move the potential compliance target to 2031. The proposal would apply to public water systems across the United States, including systems overseen by states, territories and Tribes that do not have primary authority for the federal standards.

EPA described the change as a practical implementation adjustment rather than a withdrawal of the limits. The proposal would therefore preserve the underlying federal standards while giving qualifying systems additional time to meet them. That could extend the period before some systems must complete reductions tied to the two chemicals.

The action is still a proposal, not a final nationwide deadline. EPA said monitoring and reporting deadlines established under its April 2024 rule remain in force while the agency considers the proposed compliance framework. The agency has not established the number of systems that would receive extensions or the final approval criteria in the materials announcing the proposal.

The county’s Division of Air Quality submitted an attainment State Implementation Plan, commonly called a SIP, for the valley. The plan responds to the Las Vegas Valley’s designation as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

The record identifies July 2026 as the submission month but does not provide the exact day the county filed the plan.

What the county plan includes

The submission includes an emissions inventory and an attainment demonstration. Those components are intended to document the emissions being addressed and explain how the area’s plan is expected to support compliance with the federal ozone standard.

The plan also addresses enhanced monitoring, nonattainment new-source review, reasonable further progress, control measures and contingency measures. Together, those provisions cover monitoring and regulatory measures connected to the valley’s effort to meet federal air-quality obligations.

Several elements involve transportation and vehicles. The filing addresses transportation conformity, an enhanced motor-vehicle inspection and maintenance program, and a clean-fuels vehicle program.

Transportation conformity links regional transportation planning with air-quality requirements. The approved record identifies transportation and emissions planning as part of the filing, but it does not identify specific projects, facilities or vehicle owners that would be affected.

Why the filing matters locally

The submission could shape later decisions involving industrial permitting, transportation planning, vehicle-inspection requirements and additional emissions controls in the Las Vegas area. Those are potential consequences of the regulatory process, not current changes confirmed by the record.

For people in Las Vegas, the most important distinction is that the plan covers the Las Vegas Valley rather than the city government alone. The county record specifically identifies the valley, whose principal urban area includes Las Vegas, and describes requirements affecting regional transportation and emissions planning.

That regional scope means the filing should not be read as a city-only emissions plan. The available record does not quantify a separate effect on Las Vegas or attribute all valley emissions to the city.

The filing’s transportation and vehicle provisions also do not, by themselves, establish that motorists currently face a new inspection program, that a clean-fuels requirement has taken effect, or that a particular transportation project has been changed. The source material supports describing those items as elements addressed by the submitted plan.

EPA status remains unconfirmed

The approved record does not state whether EPA has accepted, approved or rejected the county’s submission. It also does not provide a later agency deadline or a confirmed next action beyond the plan being available for federal review.

For now, the documented development is Clark County’s submission of the attainment SIP. The plan sets out an approach involving emissions inventories, an attainment demonstration, monitoring, permitting, transportation conformity, inspection and maintenance, clean fuels, control measures and contingency measures.

Any future EPA action, or any new local requirement resulting from that process, was not confirmed in the available source. Until that status changes, the filing should be understood as a submitted regional air-quality plan rather than a final approval or an immediate change for residents, businesses or vehicle owners in Las Vegas.

The agency announced the proposed rule on May 18, 2026. The plan would maintain the federal maximum contaminant levels for both chemicals; it would change the timetable available to some systems rather than remove or weaken those limits.

The proposal is not final. EPA has not announced a final-rule date, and the proposal’s ultimate legal and implementation status remains pending.

What EPA is proposing

Under the proposal, eligible drinking-water systems could request two additional years to meet the federal requirements. The extension would not automatically apply to every system, and the approved record does not say how many systems could qualify.

The proposed extension would operate through the national Safe Drinking Water Act framework. That makes the rulemaking relevant to public water systems across the United States, although the effect on any particular system would depend on whether it is eligible and whether its request is approved.

PFOA and PFOS are the two substances specifically named in the proposal. The EPA’s approach is to retain the federal maximum contaminant levels for each while addressing the time some systems may need to complete their compliance efforts.

Why the deadline matters

The timetable could affect how water systems plan treatment work, prepare for compliance and manage related costs. Systems working toward the federal limits may need to assess their current schedules alongside the possibility of seeking additional time.

For people who receive water from public systems, the immediate issue is when a qualifying system must meet the federally enforceable limits. A two-year extension could provide more time for eligible systems to complete compliance work, but it would not mean that every system receives an extension or that 2031 becomes a nationwide final deadline.

The proposal also has implications for the timing of public-health protections related to PFAS contamination. The approved record does not provide numerical PFOA or PFOS limits, treatment-cost estimates or specific health-effect findings, so those details cannot be determined from the proposal materials provided.

Comment period and next steps

EPA held a virtual public hearing on July 7, 2026. The public-comment period closed July 20, giving the agency comments to review before deciding whether to finalize the proposal, revise it or take another action.

EPA’s announcements and schedules page, updated July 24, listed active rulemakings and comment deadlines, including environmental and chemical-safety actions. That schedule provides current agency context, but it does not establish a final date for this rule.

The agency’s civil and cleanup enforcement record, updated July 10, also included nationwide pollution and water-related actions. Those cases provide broader context for continuing federal environmental compliance work, but they do not change the status of the PFOA and PFOS proposal.

For now, water systems and the people who rely on them are still operating under a proposed timetable. The possible 2031 date applies only as a potential extended deadline for eligible systems if the proposal is finalized and the extension is granted. Until EPA takes final action, the existing rulemaking remains under consideration.

The proposal was published in June 2026. Butte CTEC posted the proposed plan and its Residential Lead Proposed Plan fact sheet on June 16, giving Butte residents information about a potential change that could expand or intensify residential cleanup work.

What the proposal could change

If the EPA plan is finalized, more Butte-area residential properties could qualify for lead remediation under a lower cleanup standard. That could affect how homes are tested, which properties receive cleanup work and the options available to residents seeking additional health protection.

The approved materials do not provide the proposed numerical lead threshold or the number of additional homes that could qualify. They also do not establish a final approval date or an implementation schedule. The lower cleanup level remains a proposal, not a final requirement.

The plan also should not be read as proof of current exposure levels in any particular Butte neighborhood or household. The available information does not identify specific properties that would qualify.

Free residential testing and cleanup program

A separate flyer posted by Butte CTEC on June 23 describes a Residential Metals Abatement Program. The program tests for metals and cleans residential properties free of charge, according to the flyer.

The program provides a separate route for residential metals testing and cleanup information while the EPA considers the proposed lead plan. The approved materials do not include additional eligibility details, a list of participating homes or a deadline for applying.

Site remains incomplete

EPA’s site-milestones information says construction at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area site is not yet complete sitewide. The site also has not been deleted from the National Priorities List, the federal list used for Superfund sites requiring cleanup.

That status provides context for the proposed residential changes: cleanup work at the site is continuing, and the federal site process has not reached completion.

Next accountability point

The site’s sixth five-year review is due in fall 2026. Five-year reviews are the next major accountability point identified in the approved materials, although the packet does not provide a specific review date or its expected findings.

For Butte residents, the immediate distinction is between available assistance and proposed standards. The free residential metals-abatement program is described in the June 23 flyer, while the EPA’s lower lead cleanup level and expanded remediation plan still await further action.

The agency is also proposing to rescind federal standards for four other PFAS categories: PFHxS, PFNA, GenX chemicals and PFBS-related hazard-index mixtures. The two proposals could change water systems’ testing, treatment and compliance schedules nationwide, but neither proposal is a final rule.

What EPA proposed

Under the PFOA and PFOS proposal, EPA would retain the existing maximum contaminant levels for the two chemicals. Eligible systems could seek two additional years to meet those enforceable limits, rather than automatically receiving a new deadline.

If finalized as proposed, the extension could allow compliance through 2031. The proposal does not immediately extend the deadline, remove the standards or change the obligations of every public water system. The final scope and any conditions for requesting an extension remain unsettled.

PFAS are a group of chemicals addressed in federal drinking-water policy. The EPA’s separate rescission proposal would remove standards covering PFHxS, PFNA, GenX chemicals and PFBS-related hazard-index mixtures. The agency said that action is intended to correct what it described as a failure to follow requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act during the earlier rulemaking.

Why the proposals matter

Public water systems across the United States would be responsible for responding to whatever rules EPA ultimately adopts. The proposals could affect the timing of monitoring, treatment projects and compliance decisions, as well as the costs systems face while working to meet federal requirements.

For households, the immediate situation is unchanged by the proposals: the existing federal standards have not been eliminated, and the PFOA and PFOS compliance deadline has not been extended. Any changes would depend on EPA’s review and final decisions.

The proposals also address different regulatory questions. The first would preserve federal limits for PFOA and PFOS while creating a possible route for eligible systems to seek more time. The second would rescind standards for four other PFAS categories based on EPA’s stated procedural rationale. Neither action should be described as a completed rollback or a finalized extension.

Public review has ended

EPA announced the proposals on May 18, 2026. The agency held a virtual public hearing on July 7, and the public-comment period closed July 20.

EPA must now review the submissions before deciding whether to finalize either proposal. The agency has not announced final decisions. The ultimate legal status, implementation conditions and scope of the changes could differ from the proposals after that review.

The debate is part of EPA’s broader national PFAS strategy, which also includes federal funding and enforcement actions. But the agency’s PFAS action materials identify the drinking-water changes as proposals, not completed rules.

Until EPA takes final action, public water systems and households remain subject to the existing federal framework. The next significant step is the agency’s decision on whether, and in what form, to finalize the proposed compliance extension and the separate rescission of the four PFAS standards.

The work is part of a broader Pacific Southwest construction schedule EPA announced July 16, 2026. The agency listed construction starts at six Superfund sites from July through fall, followed by a later project in Arizona. The schedule places long-planned work on residential soil, groundwater, mine waste and drinking-water protection into the field-work phase, although the announcement does not mean every listed project had already begun.

Residential cleanup in Jackson

EPA says the Argonaut Mine work is intended to reduce residents’ exposure to heavy metals including arsenic, lead and mercury associated with historic mining. The immediate project involves residential yards rather than only additional study or planning.

EPA’s official Argonaut Mine document index identifies a collection for the “2026-2027 Argonaut Mine Residential Non-Time Critical Removal Action.” The July 16 construction schedule refers to 39 residential properties, while a separate Argonaut planning record refers to a 40-property cleanup document. Those figures should not be treated as identical records.

As of Aug. 5, 2026, EPA has not confirmed that the Argonaut work is complete. Residents should watch the agency’s site page, community notices and local information repository for property-specific access, excavation, sampling and clean-soil replacement updates.

Several types of contamination

The regional schedule covers different contamination problems and cleanup methods. EPA listed work at Northeast Church Rock, Lava Cap Mine, Southern Avenue Industrial Area, San Fernando Valley Area 1 and Sulphur Bank Mine. Iron King in Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona, was listed for later in 2026.

At the Southern Avenue Industrial Area in South Gate, California, EPA expects to remove more than 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil to prevent future exposure and future groundwater contamination. At Lava Cap Mine near Grass Valley and Nevada City, construction of a wetland-based water-treatment system was scheduled for late July. At Sulphur Bank Mine in Clearlake Oaks, a fall residential cleanup is planned at 13 properties, with about 6,000 cubic yards of waste to be removed and replaced with clean soil.

Groundwater treatment under Los Angeles

San Fernando Valley Area 1 addresses a contaminated drinking-water aquifer beneath the North Hollywood area of Los Angeles. EPA says it has been working with the city and state regulators to start two treatment plants, North Hollywood West and North Hollywood Central.

EPA’s July announcement says the systems are intended to provide up to 30,000 gallons per minute of drinking water, with startup activity listed for late July. That is a stated design or planned capacity, not confirmation that the plants are currently operating at full capacity. Treatment construction, operation and long-term monitoring remain separate steps.

Uranium waste on Navajo Nation lands

Northeast Church Rock is about 17 miles northeast of Gallup, New Mexico, in the Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation. EPA says it is working with the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and New Mexico officials on cleanup overseen at the former uranium mine.

The July schedule calls for removing approximately 1 million cubic yards of uranium mine waste and moving it to a nearby engineered repository. EPA’s site page describes the larger cleanup in different terms, referring to approximately 1.4 million tons of contaminated soil to be consolidated at the nearby mill site. The July announcement’s cubic-yard figure and the site page’s tonnage are not interchangeable measurements.

The planned quantity is not newly removed material. EPA separately says earlier time-critical actions removed approximately 200,000 tons of contaminated soil from an adjacent residential area.

What happens next

The July 16 announcement is an agency schedule and implementation update. It does not establish that every listed project had begun by that date, and construction starts do not mean a site is fully remediated.

Depending on the site, later phases may include treatment, monitoring, capping, waste consolidation or additional excavation. For residents near the listed locations, the most useful next information will come from site-specific schedules and community notices describing when crews will enter properties, how material will be sampled and where contaminated waste will be taken.

The immediate significance is the move from planning toward physical cleanup at several long-running Superfund sites. Completion—and long-term protection of homes, drinking water and tribal lands—will require separate milestones.

Sources

• EPA construction schedule for Pacific Southwest Superfund sites
• EPA Argonaut Mine reports and documents

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

EPA announced the Small, Rural, and Tribal Drinking Water Assistance Grant Program allotment on June 26, 2026. The program page was updated July 28. Funding for states and territories is distributed through a formula that considers factors including poverty, small water systems and underserved communities. EPA says tribal funding is handled through a separate allotment.

What the funding can cover

Eligible work can include drinking-water treatment, transmission and distribution, storage, source improvements, new systems and consolidation. The program also can support household water-quality testing, including testing for unregulated contaminants, and drinking-water contamination response efforts.

Funds may also be used for Safe Drinking Water Act compliance and for technical, managerial and financial capacity building. That assistance can help systems with engineering, planning, budgeting, operations or compliance work that may be needed before an infrastructure project can move forward.

Local systems do not apply directly to EPA

The program is noncompetitive but voluntary. States, territories and tribes must apply to EPA and submit required work plans. Once funds are provided to states and territories, local water systems generally seek assistance through their respective state programs rather than receiving direct EPA awards under this mechanism.

Projects must take place in communities that meet the program’s definitions of underserved, small and disadvantaged under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA’s guidance includes communities without household drinking-water or wastewater service, systems that violate or exceed certain drinking-water standards, and communities that meet state affordability criteria or have fewer than 10,000 residents without sufficient debt capacity to finance a project.

That structure means a state or territory’s listed allotment is not proof that a particular community has been selected or that construction has started. Local results will depend on state participation, project design, documentation, engineering and the ability of water systems to complete the application and compliance process.

EPA says applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis

EPA’s updated program guidance says states may apply after their allotments are announced, and that funding will be awarded on a rolling basis as applications are received. States must submit draft work plans to their EPA regions before applying. EPA anticipates that general project and budget periods will be no more than three years, although the timing of local assistance will depend on state administration.

EPA also acknowledged implementation problems at a July 10 roundtable with states, water systems, associations and technical-assistance providers. The agency said the discussion addressed delays and barriers that can affect small communities seeking infrastructure funding. EPA said it would develop an online toolbox and form workgroups with states and water-sector partners.

Those tools and workgroups were planned actions, not evidence that delays had already been eliminated. For communities with limited staff, the implementation chain may be as important as the amount of money available.

A separate loan program is also changing

EPA separately announced a fee waiver for some small communities using the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, known as WIFIA. That action concerns loans, not SmaRT grants, and has a different eligibility and financing structure. EPA said the waiver could eliminate nearly $200,000 in application and credit-processing fees for eligible small-community loan applicants, subject to program requirements and available administrative funds.

For residents and local officials, the practical next step is to watch their state drinking-water or environmental agency for announcements about applications and technical assistance. The federal allotment may help targeted small-system needs, including lead, PFAS and aging-infrastructure work, but it does not guarantee a project award to any particular community.

Sources

• EPA SmaRT Drinking Water Assistance Grant Program guidance

The audit, issued July 21, 2026, as EPA Office of Inspector General report 26-P-0043, reviewed fiscal 2022 and 2023 water earmark grants. Congress directed approximately $2.3 billion for 1,198 projects involving drinking-water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and water-quality protection.

As of September 2025, approximately 44% of the earmarked funds had not been awarded. The OIG said that meant more than $1 billion had not been awarded and used to achieve the intended purpose of improving public health and environmental protections. The delay affected 510 of the 1,198 projects.

Why the awards were delayed

EPA told the OIG that progress was slowed by several factors: The agency initially did not have an earmark program in place, it faced significant personnel shortages, and many recipients had limited experience managing federal grants.

Those are EPA’s stated explanations for the slow progress. The OIG separately found that EPA had not established a goal for how quickly the current earmarks should be awarded, lacked effective central tracking of pre-award documents and had not provided clear guidance on when tribal consultation applied to individual grant awards.

The report also found incomplete grant records in the files it reviewed. The OIG said missing documentation, unclear policy and guidance, limited training and incomplete compliance reviews could impair transparency and the agency’s ability to safeguard funds and verify that awards were used for their intended purposes.

What the delay means for communities

The audit does not say that every affected project serves a community with unsafe drinking water or an active public-health emergency. It does mean that communities named for the earmarks may still be waiting for formal awards, approvals or usable project funds.

That delay can be especially consequential for smaller water systems and rural communities that must coordinate several federal and state funding sources. A June 23, 2026 report from the Government Accountability Office identified 28 USDA and EPA programs that can assist rural communities with water infrastructure. GAO said varying application deadlines, eligibility rules and funding restrictions can make assistance difficult to access, and that delays from one funding source can jeopardize other grants or the project itself.

EPA’s broader water-financing programs illustrate the scale of the national infrastructure challenge. The agency says its WIFIA loan program has supported $51 billion in projects serving an estimated 67 million people. Those figures describe WIFIA loans, not the earmarked grants reviewed in the audit.

What EPA has agreed to do

The OIG made five recommendations. They include developing strategies and expectations for timely awards, clarifying tribal-consultation requirements, improving grant-records policy, training personnel on records management and strengthening Region 5 controls over pre-award requirements.

According to the audit, EPA completed corrective actions addressing the recommendations on timely awards, tribal consultation and Region 5 controls. The agency agreed to corrective actions on grant-record clarification and training; those recommendations were resolved with corrective actions still pending.

What the audit did not find

The report does not allege that the money was stolen, permanently lost or canceled. It also lists zero questioned costs and zero funds recommended for better use. The central finding is that funds had not been awarded and used as intended by September 2025, alongside weaknesses in EPA’s systems for managing the grants.

The findings follow an April 15, 2026 OIG review of water earmark drawdown documentation. That review examined 291 active grants awarded by September 30, 2024. It found that 169 had not drawn down awarded funds within 180 days of the award date, and that 123 of those files did not document why the funds had not been drawn down. The review said those grants were valued at approximately $269 million, while also noting that recipients may have been delayed by permitting or construction issues.

What to watch next

The next accountability questions are whether EPA follows through on the remaining corrective actions, publishes clearer award-timing information and improves its tracking of pre-award records. Communities and taxpayers should also watch for updated award data and any congressional oversight of projects that remain delayed.

Sources

• EPA OIG audit of fiscal 2022 and 2023 water earmarks
• GAO report on rural water infrastructure assistance
• EPA WIFIA program

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

EPA reopened comments May 27 on a proposal first issued Feb. 20, 2020. The proposal would create a federal permitting process for coal-combustion-residuals disposal units, including requirements for permit applications, permit contents, modifications, procedures and electronic permitting.

EPA is now reviewing the additional comments. The federal permitting rule has not been finalized, and the agency could issue further proposed or final rules after that review.

Where federal permits would apply

EPA says it would administer the program directly in Indian Country and at coal-ash units in states that have not submitted EPA-approved permitting programs.

States may operate their own CCR permit programs if EPA determines that their requirements are at least as protective as federal standards. As a result, permitting authority could differ by facility, depending on the location and the status of the state program.

Coal combustion residuals, commonly called coal ash, are produced by coal-fired power plants and stored in landfills and surface impoundments. Existing federal standards address releases to groundwater, airborne dust and catastrophic failures, along with monitoring, inspections, recordkeeping, reporting and public disclosure of compliance information.

EPA is considering an interim general permit

In a separate July 13 notice, EPA sought comments on a potential general-permit approach for eligible facilities. The concept would provide interim coverage while states update their programs and before facilities receive site-specific permits.

That approach has not been adopted, and facilities cannot treat it as an available permit. EPA is seeking input on eligibility criteria and compliance requirements. The agency says it may later issue a proposed rule followed by a final rule. Comments on the general-permit notice are due Oct. 13, 2026.

EPA says an interim permit could reduce delays, provide regulatory clarity and support electric-grid reliability while maintaining environmental and public-health protections. The agency’s notice also seeks input on how eligible facilities could obtain coverage during the transition.

Why groundwater and closure requirements matter

The permitting debate is connected to how facilities monitor groundwater, respond to contamination, set corrective-action cleanup levels and close disposal units. EPA’s separate 2026 CCR regulatory proposal would, if finalized, allow more site-specific choices involving groundwater-monitoring points, cleanup levels, closure requirements and closure timelines in some circumstances.

EPA says those options could account for site conditions and reduce regulatory delays. The Associated Press reported that environmental advocates have raised concerns that weaker or more flexible requirements could leave coal ash in contact with groundwater or reduce cleanup obligations. Those are documented policy and stakeholder concerns, not proof that a particular facility is contaminating drinking water without facility-specific evidence.

Dust controls and public transparency are also important. EPA’s existing CCR program requires facilities to maintain compliance information online, while future permits could determine how monitoring, corrective actions and closure obligations are applied at particular sites. Those decisions could affect cleanup costs, operating timelines and the information available to nearby communities.

Alabama shows the parallel state track

EPA’s July 13 proposal to approve Alabama’s coal-ash permit program illustrates the state-based track. If finalized, the action would shift authority for permitting CCR disposal in Alabama’s landfills and surface impoundments from the federal government to the state.

Alabama has not received final approval. EPA is accepting comments on the proposed approval through Sept. 14, 2026, and has scheduled a virtual hearing for Sept. 3. EPA said it denied Alabama’s earlier application in 2024 because some state-law permits used technical standards that were viewed as weaker than federal standards. The agency said Alabama’s 2026 application did not seek approval of its existing permits.

The Alabama proceeding is separate from the reopened federal proposal, but it shows how EPA’s broader state-permitting framework could affect where future permit decisions are made.

What to watch next

The immediate next step is EPA’s review of comments on the federal permitting proposal. The agency may later issue additional proposed or final rules, including action on the potential general permit.

For communities and facilities, the main questions are which government will issue permits, how eligibility for any interim general permit will be determined, what groundwater and cleanup requirements will apply, how long closure may take and how monitoring data will be made public.

The process remains a set of proposals and pending reviews. As of Aug. 3, 2026, no final federal coal-ash permitting rule or nationwide general permit had followed the July 29 comment deadline.

Sources

• EPA Alabama CCR program proposal
• Associated Press coal-ash regulation report

The measures concern California’s Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth rule, also described by EPA as CARB at Berth, and the Commercial Harbor Craft Amendments. They address emissions from ocean-going vessels while docked at California ports and from commercial harbor craft operating in California waters and port areas.

What the two measures address

The at-berth requirements involve pollution controls that can include shore power or other port-electrification systems while ocean-going vessels are docked. The harbor-craft amendments establish emissions requirements for vessels such as workboats and other commercial craft.

EPA argues that the requirements could increase maritime compliance costs, strain port infrastructure and add pressure to national supply chains. The agency also says the harbor-craft requirements could threaten maritime jobs and raise prices for goods shipped by sea. Those are EPA’s stated concerns, not established outcomes. The July 22 transmittal did not determine that shipping prices or employment will definitely change.

Why California can set stricter standards

The Clean Air Act generally limits states’ ability to impose their own emissions standards for vehicles and certain engines. Sections 209(b) and 209(e), however, create special pathways for California.

Under Section 209(b), California can seek a waiver of federal preemption for stricter motor-vehicle emissions standards. EPA generally must grant the waiver unless it finds that California’s determination was arbitrary and capricious, that the state does not need the standards to address compelling and extraordinary conditions, or that the standards conflict with federal law.

Section 209(e) provides a related authorization process for certain nonroad engines and vehicles. The marine measures in the latest EPA action involve that broader nonroad emissions framework, but the legal treatment of each measure depends on the specific rule and authorization at issue.

Other states may adopt qualifying California motor-vehicle standards under Section 177 when the statutory conditions are met. That does not automatically mean every state can adopt California’s marine requirements. The authority and the specific measures involved must be examined separately.

What Congress can do next

The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to consider agency rules through expedited procedures. If Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval and the president signs it, the rule would have no force or effect under the act. EPA’s transmittal gives Congress an opportunity to begin that process; it is not itself a congressional decision.

The legal question is contested. The Congressional Research Service has noted disagreement over whether Clean Air Act waiver decisions qualify as “rules” under the Congressional Review Act. That issue could be tested through congressional action or litigation.

The July action follows EPA’s June 12 transmittal of four other California vehicle and equipment waivers. In 2025, Congress and the president overturned three California vehicle-waiver rules, creating a recent precedent for the strategy while questions remain about how it applies to the marine decisions.

Why the dispute matters nationally

California’s ports and shipping network are tied to national commerce, so changes in vessel requirements, shore-power systems and port infrastructure could affect companies that operate across state lines. EPA says those compliance issues could add pressure to shipping networks and the prices of goods moved by sea. Whether those effects occur, and how large they would be, remains unresolved.

What to watch

The next developments could include joint resolutions in Congress, committee or floor action, responses from California and maritime groups, and court filings. Readers should also watch whether the rules continue operating during any review and whether ports or shipping companies announce changes to compliance plans or infrastructure investments.

Sources

• EPA: Two additional California waiver decisions sent to Congress
• Congressional Research Service: California and the Clean Air Act Waiver
• GAO: Congressional Review Act Frequently Asked Questions

EPA issued the renewal on July 17, and it took effect July 20. The agency’s guidance says the waivers remain in place for 20 days, making August 8 the key expiration date unless EPA takes further action.

What the waiver allows

During the covered period, gasoline containing between 9% and 15% ethanol may be produced and distributed under a common 10-psi Reid Vapor Pressure standard. Reid Vapor Pressure measures how readily gasoline evaporates. Summer gasoline normally faces tighter volatility controls because evaporating fuel can contribute to ozone pollution.

EPA said the temporary policy is intended to avoid forcing suppliers to shift to lower-volatility fuel while the agency continues to assess supply conditions. The agency acted in consultation with the Department of Energy under emergency authority in the Clean Air Act.

The waiver also temporarily waives federal enforcement of certain state “boutique” fuel requirements. Those rules are state- or county-specific gasoline requirements designed around local air-quality or consumer-protection programs. EPA’s action does not permanently repeal those rules. The agency says states may still need to address their own laws before the federal waiver can operate fully in a particular market.

What drivers should not assume

The policy does not require every retailer to offer E15, gasoline blended with 15% ethanol. Availability will still depend on individual retailers and suppliers, local requirements and other applicable fuel rules. EPA also says fuel producers and sellers must continue following requirements that were not specifically waived, including rules connected to E15 use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty vehicles.

Drivers should also avoid treating the waiver as an automatic price cut. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a national regular-gasoline average of $4.001 per gallon for the week of July 20, up 14.6 cents from the prior week. That figure is a national average, not a prediction for any individual station, city or state, and it does not establish that the waiver caused the increase.

What to watch next

The immediate question is whether EPA renews the waiver after August 8 or allows the temporary rules to expire. EPA’s guidance also says qualifying fuel that entered domestic pipelines or was certified before expiration may continue to be distributed and sold until the documented volume is depleted.

For consumers, the practical signals will be local: whether E15 appears at nearby stations, whether suppliers report fewer distribution constraints and whether pump prices change as broader fuel-market conditions develop. The federal waiver creates flexibility in the supply chain; it does not promise uniform fuel availability or cheaper gasoline everywhere.

Sources

• EPA Fuel Waivers Guidance
• EIA Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

EPA announced the proposal on July 1, 2026, and the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2026. If finalized, the baseline expectation for notice and comment would shift from a federal minimum to state-by-state design choices inside each air agency’s SIP process.

What “minor NSR” is (and what it isn’t)

Under the Clean Air Act’s NSR framework, states implement preconstruction review when stationary sources plan certain construction or modifications. “Minor NSR” generally covers projects that do not trigger the major-source pathways, which are treated differently under major NSR programs such as PSD/NNSR.

EPA’s July proposal focuses on the federal “public participation floor” for minor NSR permitting in SIP-based programs—not on changing emission standards, and not on public participation rules for SIP development/submittal itself.

The change EPA proposed: removing the federal minimum for public notice/comment

EPA says it is proposing to streamline state and local permitting by removing the federal “minimum feature” for public notice and comment that currently applies to minor NSR permitting when that program is run under EPA-approved SIP authority.

In plain terms: if EPA finalizes the rule, communities and interested residents may see less consistent, across-the-board notice and comment expectations for minor source permits—depending on what their state (and the specific air agency) chooses to include when it updates its SIP.

Who is affected

• State and local air agencies: Agencies that administer minor NSR permitting under EPA-approved SIPs would gain more flexibility in how (and whether) they incorporate notice/comment elements, subject to whatever requirements remain in the SIP-approved framework.
• Builders, owners, and operators: Developers pursuing “minor” stationary source construction or modifications could see variation in how public participation is handled, because it would be more directly tied to each state’s SIP approach.
• Neighbors and community groups: Residents near potential minor sources would need to watch how their state air agency structures public involvement for minor NSR permits after the federal action—because the federal baseline would no longer be the uniform starting point.

What stays the same

EPA’s proposal is not described as a change to substantive air-quality protections or emission standards. It is also not aimed at public participation requirements for SIP development/submittal, and it does not apply to major NSR (PSD/NNSR) permitting public participation rules.

Public timeline: comments due Aug. 21, 2026; conditional hearing

EPA’s proposal has a federal comment window running through August 21, 2026. EPA also indicates there may be a virtual public hearing on July 22, 2026 if a hearing is requested by July 12, 2026.

If you want the practical bottom line for your community, the most important follow-up is what happens in the SIP process—because that is where states would translate the federal shift into real-world permit practice.

What to watch next: SIP updates and state-by-state notice practices

After EPA takes final action, readers should expect differences by state in how minor NSR permitting public participation works. To track updates tied to NSR proposals and implementation steps, EPA maintains a running NSR regulatory actions hub.

For residents and local stakeholders, the key question is straightforward: once the federal minimum requirement changes, will your state keep robust notice/comment practices for minor NSR permits—or redesign them in a way that reduces standardized opportunities to weigh in?

Sources

• EPA news release (July 1, 2026): “EPA Proposes to Streamline State and Local Permitting Process for Minor Sources”
• Federal Register proposed rule (July 7, 2026): “Minor New Source Review Program Air Permitting Public Participation Requirements for State Implementation Plans” (comment deadline Aug. 21, 2026; potential virtual hearing July 22, 2026)

This matters for residents because these SDWA determinations were used in EPA’s 2024 PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) to support requirements that could drive monitoring and, where needed, treatment decisions by public water systems (PWSs). For this proposal, the key question is what changes—if any—after EPA reviews the public record and moves to a final rule.

What EPA proposed (and what it says is the reason)

In a May 20, 2026 Federal Register notice, EPA proposes to:

• Rescind regulatory determinations for these four SDWA-linked items (PFHxS, PFNA, GenX/HFPO-DA, and the Hazard Index mixture including PFBS).
• Rescind associated regulatory provisions that were codified in the 2024 PFAS NPDWR exclusive to these PFAS.
• That includes final MCLs and MCLGs (Maximum Contaminant Levels/Maximum Contaminant Level Goals) and other linked provisions that would have required monitoring, and where necessary, treatment.

EPA frames the rationale as a legal/procedural correction: the agency says the earlier approach treated the determinations and regulations as if they could be handled simultaneously and in tandem, but EPA argues SDWA does not authorize that sequencing.

Timeline: when people could comment, and where the record lives

• May 20, 2026: EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654).
• July 7, 2026: EPA held a virtual public hearing as part of the process.
• July 20, 2026: written comments closed.

The Federal Register page also reports that 53,645 comments had been received at Regulations.gov for this docket. Comments are no longer being accepted, so the next turning point is EPA’s review of the record and whether EPA issues a final decision.

What could change next for water systems (if EPA finalizes rescission)

This proposal is not yet a final rescission. But if EPA finalizes it as proposed, the most immediate real-world change would be the removal of the specific SDWA-linked requirements for these PFAS and that Hazard Index framework—potentially affecting what federal provisions would require (or no longer require) in terms of system testing/monitoring and, where needed, treatment.

Even then, implementation isn’t purely federal. SDWA is carried out through a combination of federal standards and state “primacy” oversight, so local impacts depend on how regulators and utilities respond after EPA issues a final rule.

What residents should watch for now

• EPA’s next action: look for a final rule or additional steps that either confirm, narrow, or revise the proposed rescission.
• State/regulator guidance: primacy agencies may adjust how they interpret or plan for testing and compliance while EPA considers final action.
• Utility communications: some public water systems may update sampling or reporting plans in anticipation of possible changes.

Bottom line: EPA’s May 20 proposal targets PFHxS, PFNA, GenX (HFPO-DA), and the Hazard Index mixture including PFBS. The comment window closed July 20, and the public record now sets up EPA’s decision on whether to finalize rescission of these SDWA-linked determinations and related MCL/MCLG provisions—steps that could reshape what federal compliance requirements apply next.

Sources

• EPA — Proposed PFAS Rescission Rule (overview page, hearing/comment info)
• Federal Register — Proposed Rule 2026-10085 (EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654), published May 20, 2026
• GovInfo — Federal Register PDF for 2026-10085 (official published text)
• Regulations.gov — Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654 (public comments and documents)

The case is in its public-comment stage. If the court enters a final order, the companies’ obligations would become enforceable. For now, the next concrete step for the public is the August 14, 2026 comment deadline.

In the DOJ filing announced July 10, 2026, DOJ said South Bow (USA) LP and South Bow Infrastructure Operations Inc. agreed to pay a $26,867,789 civil penalty and complete an estimated $40 million in work to prevent future discharges. DOJ also said the companies would pay the State of Kansas $3 million related to natural resource restoration and alleged state-law violations.

What happened in Kansas

DOJ said the rupture leaked nearly 13,000 barrels (about 543,000 gallons) of oil over land and into Mill Creek. DOJ also described the discharge as blanketing creek areas for about 3.5 miles downstream and said a Kansas stream advisory restricted contact with the creek by people, livestock, and pets.

DOJ further said the spill killed or impacted more than 2,700 animals.

What the government is asking the court to approve

This is not a final judgment. It is a proposed consent decree filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Federal Register notice also confirms that the publication starts the public comment process, which must run before the court can decide whether to enter a final order.

The proposed decree seeks:

• $26,867,789 in a civil penalty
• Approximately $40 million in injunctive work to strengthen prevention and detection of stress-related failure risk
• Over $3 million for the State of Kansas for natural resource restoration projects and to address related Kansas state-law violations

What “prevention and detection” means in plain English

EPA’s enforcement summary describes the prevention/detection work as steps intended to reduce the likelihood of a similar spill by improving how the operator manages and monitors pipeline integrity risk. Among the categories described:

• Robust procedures, training, and pipeline specifications
• Inspection schedules and operational limits
• Integrity, reliability, and engineering assessments connected to stress/failure prevention and detection

The injunctive relief described by EPA also accounts for corrective actions the companies had already undertaken.

How the public comment window works

EPA’s and DOJ’s announcements, along with the Federal Register notice, show a 30-day comment process. Because the notice was published July 15, 2026, comments are due by August 14, 2026.

After that window closes, the proposed settlement remains subject to court review—so the main “watch next” item is whether the record leads to changes or questions before the court decides on final entry.

Why this matters beyond the Kansas rupture site

Even though the rupture happened in Kansas, the consent decree’s enforceable compliance framework signals how federal regulators are spelling out pipeline integrity, prevention, and monitoring expectations when Clean Water Act discharge risk is alleged.

What to watch next

• Aug. 14, 2026: last day for public comments on the proposed consent decree
• After the comment period: whether the court enters a final order or requests revisions
• If finalized: implementation of the prevention/detection measures (procedures, training, inspection/limits, and integrity/engineering assessments)

Sources

• DOJ press release on the proposed Keystone CWA consent decree (July 10, 2026)
• Federal Register notice opening the public comment period (July 15, 2026)
• EPA enforcement summary with prevention/detection requirements overview

What EPA finalized

EPA’s final rule creates a new NSPS structure (in 40 CFR Part 60, subpart KKKKa) that sets emissions limits for nitrogen oxides (NOx). Under EPA’s framework, it also addresses sulfur dioxide (SO2). The rule is effective January 15, 2026.

EPA also shows a correction dated July 13, 2026 tied to the final rule package. If you are building or updating compliance documentation, use the corrected materials.

Who is covered (and what triggers the new standards)

The standards don’t automatically reach every existing power plant or industrial site. In plain terms, the NSPS applies when a facility has a covered stationary combustion turbine that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after December 13, 2024.

The rule also describes an option for some units that were already covered under older subparts to petition to comply using the newer approach.

What changes for NOx: limits depend on the turbine category

EPA sets NOx limits that vary by how the turbine is categorized—based on factors like unit size and operating characteristics. EPA’s fact sheet explains the rule uses size-based subcategories and then distinguishes between units using operating and design thresholds.

EPA says combustion controls are the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for most covered subcategories. For one specific NOx subcategory, EPA’s BSER includes combustion controls plus selective catalytic reduction (SCR).

In practice, this category-based structure means permits and compliance plans may focus on how the project is categorized, what control equipment is proposed (including whether SCR is used), and how performance tests will be documented.

The near-term compliance shift: electronic reporting in 2026–2027

EPA’s rule places major emphasis on electronic submission.

• Beginning March 16, 2026, owners/operators must submit key performance test and CEMS performance evaluation results electronically, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test or CEMS performance evaluation.
• For semiannual reporting, the rule requires electronic submissions via CEDRI by the 30th day following the end of each 6-month period.
• Semiannual reporting begins January 15, 2027, with timing also tied to when report templates for the subpart are available on EPA’s CEDRI website.

The systems involved include CEDRI for compliance reporting submissions and the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) for generating electronic files connected to performance testing documentation.

Reader impact: permits, documentation, and uneven timing by project

For communities near covered facilities and for energy consumers, the rule matters most through what it changes for new, modified, or reconstructed turbine projects: the equipment decisions that support NOx compliance and the administrative workflow for compliance evidence.

Because the standards hinge on whether construction/modification/reconstruction occurred after December 13, 2024, effects will be uneven across regions and plants—showing up primarily where projects are moving forward under the new trigger and where air agencies update permit conditions and reporting schedules accordingly.

Sources

• EPA NSPS hub page: Stationary Gas and Combustion Turbines (Final Rule)
• Federal Register (EPA final NSPS): “New Source Performance Standards Review for Stationary Combustion Turbines and Stationary Gas Turbines” (Jan. 15, 2026; FR-2026-01-15, PDF 2026-00677)

EPA says the settlement was finalized June 23, 2026 and publicly announced on July 2, 2026, with the agency’s related webpage last updated July 15, 2026.

What EPA finalized (and what changed this week)

This is a final administrative settlement resolution under RCRA, not a proposal. In its July 2 announcement, EPA said the agreement “comprehensively resolves” alleged RCRA violations involving chloroprene waste management.

Among the core terms, EPA’s enforcement documents say Denka must (1) remove and certify cleanup of residual waste in an outside, open-air brine pit and related/ancillary equipment, (2) pay a $996,703 civil penalty, and (3) comply with RCRA disposal requirements for waste generated during the cleanup process.

What EPA says Denka got wrong under RCRA

EPA’s stated RCRA allegations focus on hazardous-waste decision-making and handling. According to EPA’s release and enforcement summary, the alleged issues include failure to properly make hazardous-waste determinations, mishandling chloroprene-containing waste, and improper handling/treatment/disposal pathways that EPA says were not authorized as required.

EPA also points to a longer enforcement history involving chloroprene-related compliance issues tied to earlier regulatory actions, including the 2022 consent agreement that set a baseline for specific brine-pit requirements.

Cleanup and cost: penalty plus required waste removal

EPA’s settlement summary states Denka must conduct and certify a clean-out and remove residual liquid and solid waste in the outside brine pit and ancillary equipment.

EPA also says Denka will pay a $996,703 civil penalty. EPA further describes termination of the settlement obligations after Denka certifies compliance, subject to EPA approval.

If operations resume: the specific restart compliance controls

EPA says Denka suspended operations in May 2025 and that there is currently no chloroprene inventory onsite. Still, the settlement is written to govern a potential future restart.

If Denka resumes operations, EPA’s settlement documents say Denka must, among other steps:

• Maintain inventory and tracking of solid-waste streams for proper hazardous-waste determinations.
• Update permits for newly identified waste codes and associated units.
• Upgrade waste handling areas and equipment.
• Certify tank integrity.
• Store and treat waste in compliant containers and under appropriate conditions.
• Ensure worker training and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).
• Transport and dispose of waste under hazardous-waste program requirements.

The practical takeaway for communities and workers: EPA’s settlement is designed to prevent the specific compliance breakdowns EPA described by requiring enforceable documentation, containment/infrastructure controls, and hazardous-waste handling and disposal safeguards if operations ever restart.

How this follows the 2022 consent agreement

EPA says the June 2026 settlement follows a December 28, 2022 consent agreement and final order. In the 2022 order, EPA required Denka to come into RCRA compliance for “Poly Kettle Strainer Waste,” including a requirement to stop placing that waste stream into an open-air brine pit starting January 31, 2023, along with worker protective equipment requirements tied to handling the waste.

What to watch next

The next accountability checkpoint is whether Denka completes the brine-pit clean-out/removal and then submits the required certification of compliance that EPA says is necessary for the settlement to terminate—subject to EPA approval.

If the facility remains shut, the near-term impact is cleanup verification and enforcement follow-through. If operations restart, the settlement’s detailed controls become the key document to track.

Industry coverage also characterized the agreement as a nearly $1 million-level federal resolution tied to hazardous waste mishandling at the LaPlace facility.

Sources

• U.S. EPA news release (Final settlement announced July 2, 2026; last updated July 15, 2026)
• Chemical Processing coverage of the settlement (EPA fines Denka about $1M)

Quick context: why this matters in the PCWP sector

PCWP facilities manufacture panels and engineered wood products by bonding wood or fiber with resin under heat and pressure. EPA’s final action is aimed at how regulated PCWP operations control hazardous air pollutants (including formaldehyde and other air toxics) through a combination of numeric MACT limits and operational/work-practice requirements.

What changed in EPA’s final PCWP NESHAP amendments

The amendments update MACT standards for covered PCWP operations. Among other items, EPA’s final rule includes:

• Updated monitoring and compliance demonstrations, including requirements tied to bypass-stack monitoring setups.
• Combustion-related tune-up requirements for certain direct-fired dryers and lumber kiln configurations.
• Rules for how facilities demonstrate continuous compliance using defined monitoring approaches and performance evaluations.

Effective July 6, 2026: what “takes effect now” vs. what phases later

The amended NESHAP is effective July 6, 2026. For facilities, that means the updated requirements that carry the effective date apply as the compliance baseline immediately—though some provisions are explicitly written to take effect later for certain unit types/work-practice components.

For example, the rule sets some work-practice requirements for certain covered units to apply on and after July 6, 2029 (including requirements referenced for lumber kilns and several other covered unit categories).

Who is affected nationally

This is a nationwide change for covered PCWP manufacturing operations. In its economic impact analysis, EPA states it surveyed potentially impacted facilities and determined that approximately 219 existing facilities may be impacted by the amendments. EPA also notes that counts across NAICS categories can add up to more than the total because some facilities produce products classified under multiple NAICS codes.

The compliance “mechanics” facilities should expect next

For communities, the most concrete on-the-ground change often shows up through monitoring, documentation, and reporting—not only through headlines. Under the amended NESHAP framework, facilities should be prepared to:

• Submit performance test results within 60 days after completing each required performance test.
• Submit CMS performance-evaluation results within 60 days after completing each CMS performance evaluation (where applicable).
• Report semiannually using the required electronic reporting process for this subpart (through CEDRI reporting templates when they are available).
• Keep records for 5 years and ensure records are readily available for compliance review.

What to watch next: implementation and oversight

After the effective date, delegated and federal regulators typically focus on whether amended NESHAP requirements are being implemented through the monitoring plan, the recordkeeping, and the submitted reporting. Over time, residents near covered facilities may see changes reflected in permit updates, reporting patterns, and how regulators review monitoring and compliance documentation tied to the updated MACT structure.

—Brian Bateman

Sources

• Federal Register (EPA) — Final PCWP NESHAP amendments (effective July 6, 2026)
• EPA — PCWP NESHAP rule overview page

The White House action says the exemption applies to “those aspects” of EPA’s 2024 Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) rule that were promulgated under Clean Air Act section 112. For the covered sites, those deadlines are extended 2 years beyond the HON Rule’s relevant compliance dates. During each such 2-year period, the proclamation says the covered sources will be subject to the emissions and compliance obligations they were under before the HON Rule.

Who is covered (Annex I facility list)

The exemption applies only to the facilities named in Annex I:

• INEOS US Chemicals Company — Cooper River Facility (South Carolina)
• INEOS Nitriles USA LLC — Green Lake Facility (Texas); Lima Facility (Ohio)
• Occidental Chemical Corporation — Geismar Plant (Louisiana); Wichita Plant (Kansas)
• Zeon Chemicals LP — Louisville Facility (Kentucky); Zeon Chemicals LP Mississippi Plant (Mississippi)
• Westlake Vinyls Inc. — Calvert City Facility (Kentucky)
• Westlake Epoxy Inc. — Deer Park Facility (Texas)
• Westlake Chemicals and Vinyls LLC — Plaquemine Facility (Louisiana)
• Westlake Vinyls Company, LP — Geismar Facility (Louisiana)
• Eastman Chemical Company — Kingsport Facility (Tennessee)
• Hexion Inc. — Hexion Fayetteville Facility (North Carolina)
• Indorama Ventures Oxides, LLC — LAB Chocolate Bayou Facility (Texas)
• Methanex USA LLC — Geismar Facility (Louisiana)
• Methanex Beaumont, LLC — Beaumont Facility (Texas)
• Alpek Polyester USA, LLC — Columbia Site (South Carolina)
• Shintech Louisiana LLC — Plaquemine Complex (Louisiana)
• Nouryon Functional Chemicals LLC — Axis Facility (Alabama)
• AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC — Frankford Plant (Pennsylvania)

What changes during the exemption window

This isn’t portrayed as a blanket “pause” of the entire HON program. Instead, the proclamation limits the relief to certain aspects—specifically the portions promulgated under Clean Air Act section 112—and only for the Annex I facilities.

Practically, the proclamation’s key compliance message is that during each extended 2-year period, the covered sources will be subject to the emissions and compliance obligations they were under before the HON Rule.

Timeline: baseline HON deadlines and the 2-year extension rule

In the May 16, 2024 Federal Register final rule, EPA set compliance timing for several HON-related provisions, including dates such as:

• July 15, 2024: owners and operators must begin submitting performance test reports electronically (beginning on that date).
• July 15, 2025: semiannual reports are due on and after that date.
• July 15, 2026: for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before April 25, 2023, fenceline monitoring must begin by no later than July 15, 2026.

Under the proclamation, each compliance deadline established under the HON Rule that applies to the Annex I facilities is extended by 2 years from the date originally required for that deadline.

What to watch next

For communities and facility operators, the next practical question is how EPA and permit authorities reflect the proclamation’s 2-year deadline extensions in covered sources’ compliance planning and permit schedules.

Separately, EPA also says facilities may be able to request compliance extensions for fenceline monitoring provisions (40 CFR 63.184) under Clean Air Act section 112—up to one additional year where needed for installation of controls.

Bottom line: the proclamation creates a targeted exemption framework for the Annex I chemical facilities, extending certain section 112 aspects of the HON compliance deadlines by 2 years and, during the extended window, keeping covered sources on their pre-HON compliance obligations.

Sources

• White House — Presidential Proclamation (July 13, 2026): Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Chemical Manufacturing Security
• Federal Register — EPA HON Rule (Final Rule): Hazardous Organic NESHAP compliance deadline context (89 FR 42932)
• EPA — Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Frequent Questions