July 31, 2026

FCC Widens Tech Crackdown to Humanoid Robots and Power Inverters

Pittsburgh, PA

Emerging Technologies Alert

(by Justine Kasznica, Susanna Bagdasarova and Morgan Hubbard)

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has significantly expanded its Covered List to include foreign-produced advanced robotic devices (including mobile robots such as humanoid and quadruped robots) and connected power inverters, effectively barring most new products in those categories from receiving equipment authorization for importation, marketing, or sale in the United States. On July 28, 2026, the FCC announced the expansion, following formal national security determinations by a White House-convened Executive Branch interagency body which concluded that these categories of products “pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons.”

The action marks another step in the federal government’s broader effort to secure critical technology supply chains supporting artificial intelligence (AI), advanced manufacturing, critical infrastructure, and the electric grid. It also signals that connected operational technologies, including autonomous robotic systems, are increasingly being regulated through the lens of national security rather than traditional product safety or communications regulation.

Importantly, the FCC emphasized that the action is prospective, meaning that it will not affect existing products. The immediate commercial impact is expected to fall primarily on future product introductions rather than equipment currently deployed in the marketplace. Manufacturers may seek approval for new products by demonstrating that a particular device or class of devices does not present the identified national security risks. Although details regarding the technical review process remain limited, manufacturers and companies developing or deploying robotics should anticipate significant regulatory scrutiny of their supply chains, robotic platform infrastructure, cybersecurity controls, and data handling practices. …

July 29, 2026

PJM’s Proposal to FERC Targets Data Centers and Other Large Load Customers

Pittsburgh, PA

Data Center Development Alert

(by Justine Kasznica, Kate Cooper and Peter Landau)

PJM Interconnection (“PJM”) is confronting unprecedented load growth driven by data centers and other large energy users. In a Board Decisional Letter dated July 27, 2026 (the “Decisional Letter”), the PJM Board of Managers (the “Board”) describes that new large load demand is forecasted to increase by approximately 70 GW by 2038, which will place increased pressure on the region’s resource adequacy position, especially when coupled with the retirement of roughly 15 GW of generation since 2022. The stakeholder community provided various proposals through the Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP) program, with only one proposal (Coalition Reliability Backstop Procurement) receiving a supermajority of votes. The Board determined that this proposal “would not provide sufficient assurance that capacity equal to the identified near-term shortfall would actually be procured.”

In the Decisional Letter, the Board decided that it would propose a different proposal with four key features to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “FERC”) by the end of July. First, the Board plans to establish a mandatory registry of large-load customers (including data centers) whose electricity may be curtailed during system stress. Additionally, beginning in September 2026, PJM will conduct an extra capacity auction, termed the Reliability Backstop Procurement, which will be intended to address an approximately 60 GW capacity shortfall. Furthermore, Electric Distributors will be required to implement an Interim Resource Adequacy Service for new Large Loads that, as of June 1, 2027, do not bring sufficient capacity to serve their resource adequacy needs and cannot be serviced at a specified reliability standard. …

June 30, 2026

Subcontractor Methods for Protection from Material Price Escalation

Pittsburgh, PA

Contractor’s Compass

(by Marc Felezzola and Angela Harrod)

Although supply chain issues and material costs gained considerable attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, these are hardly new to the construction industry. Contractors and subcontractors have long grappled with ways to protect themselves from rising material costs and delays in material orders, particularly for long-term projects. There are several effective ways of handling the highly common occurrence of material costs rising during a project and delays or long lead times in material orders.

  1. Early material purchase and owner payment for material storage

To properly price a project, a subcontractor must know the scope of work and the necessary materials. Because material prices can increase—particularly in multi‑year projects—some subcontractors may purchase all necessary materials at contract execution to lock in the quoted price. However, this method comes with its own challenges, as project materials may be voluminous, and therefore expensive to store.

Subcontractors can overcome this expense by including a provision in their contracts that requires the contractor to pay for storage of the materials. This saves subcontractor warehouse space and storage expense while ensuring that the specified materials can be purchased at their quoted prices.

Early procurement of materials can also introduce additional hurdles for design and/or scope changes. Subcontractors should make sure that their contracts are clear regarding who is responsible for costs related to design changes, such as restocking fees when returning materials, disposal of materials that are no longer applicable to the project and cannot be returned, and replacement materials.

Whether and to what extent the contractor will agree on this approach will likely depend upon the contractor’s negotiations with the owner. …

June 18, 2026

Accessing Blight: The Basics of Administrative Search Warrants

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Max Junker and Anna Hosack)

Many of the blighted properties across Pennsylvania’s various municipalities are owned by anonymous LLCs, deceased individuals with unopened estates, or those unwilling to consent to inspection by a municipal code enforcement officer, making it especially difficult to address safety concerns that go beyond the front yard.  Municipal code enforcement officers can cite violations for anything they can observe from the public street, adjacent property with the consent of that owner, municipal/park property, or within their plain view from lawful access points (i.e. observations made while approaching the front door) without obtaining an administrative search warrant.  However, numerous violations of the building code, fire code, and property maintenance code, particularly important to the safety of surrounding properties, can only be truly assessed from the interior of the structure on the private property, so when the property owner is nowhere to be found or refuses consent, municipal code enforcement officers must turn to their solicitors and the court for help.

Because municipal officials are government actors, entering private property without permission (consent or a warrant), may violate the property owner’s state and federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.  Where consent is refused or cannot be obtained from the property owner, municipal officials cannot force entry on the property but instead can apply for an administrative search warrant.  Such warrants do not need to be served upon the property owner, so they are particularly useful in gaining access to vacant property owned by an LLC or a deceased individual.  Administrative search warrants differ from general search warrants which are used in criminal investigations to seek evidence of a crime and require the police to meet the traditional probable cause standard.  …

June 15, 2026

Fourth Circuit Overturns Preliminary Injunction in Chemours PFAS Case

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Environmental Alert

(by Joseph Schaeffer, Ethan Johnson and Alex Graf)

On June 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned an Order enjoining Chemours from exceeding permit limits for HFPO-DA, a PFAS compound, stating that it was a “step too far” based on the record. The case, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc. v. Chemours Co. FC, LLC, No. 25-1924, 2026 WL 1579491 (4th Cir. June 3, 2026), confirms that environmental plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief must establish irreparable harm to themselves, not just the general public. It also confirms that environmental plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm solely through Clean Water Act (CWA) violations or permit exceedances, either. West Virginia Rivers Coalition sets a high bar for obtaining a preliminary injunction and environmental plaintiffs must give more attention to their alleged irreparable harm before filing suit.

The case began in December 2024 when West Virginia Rivers Coalition (Rivers Coalition) sued the Chemours Company (Chemours) under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provision. Rivers Coalition alleged that Chemours was continuously violating its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit by discharging HFPO-DA in excess of permit limits at its Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Chemours manufacturers high performance polymers at the Washington Works plant with chemicals known as “processing aids,” which included HFPO-DA. Under the permit, Chemours could not emit wastewater that contained more than 2,300 parts per trillion (ppt) of HFPO-DA per day. Chemours also could not exceed a 1,100 ppt monthly average concentration for one outfall and a 1,400 ppt for another outfall. (For reference, 1 ppt is comparable to a single drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.)

Rivers Coalition alleged that Chemours was in violation of its permit limits and moved for a preliminary injunction based on the irreparable harm suffered by its member, Charlise Robinson, via exposure to HFPO-DA through her tap water. …

June 8, 2026

D.C. District Court Invalidates Procedure Allowing State Implementation of Endangered Species Act for Coal Mining Projects

Charleston, WV

Environmental Alert

(by Christopher (Kip) Power and Robert Stonestreet)

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has invalidated a procedure in place since 2020 governing review and evaluation of coal mine-related permitting activity under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is a comprehensive, multi-media statute mandating the evaluation of a broad range of potential environmental impacts of coal mining as part of a permitting program. SMCRA created the Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) to promulgate and administer specific rules for issuing mining permits and establishing environmental protection performance standards for mining operations. Among many other requirements, OSM regulations require that mine permit applications include detailed fish and wildlife information pertaining to the proposed permit and adjacent areas, and a description of how the permit applicant will minimize impacts on any threatened or endangered species and their habitat from permitted mining operations.

SMCRA recognizes that, due to differences in geology and other environmental conditions among the States, responsibility for implementing its requirements “should rest with the States.” SMCRA § 101(f). Therefore, SMCRA allows the Secretary of the Interior to delegate the primary authority for administering its requirements (known as “primacy”) to a State, upon approval of a State regulatory program that meets the requirements of SMCRA (and subject to continued oversight by OSM). Currently, there are 24 States that have been granted primacy under SMCRA (a.k.a. “Primacy States”).

Section 7 of the ESA prohibits any federal agency from authorizing an action that is likely to “jeopardize the continued existence of” any endangered or threatened species, or cause “the destruction or modification of [designated critical habitat] of such species.” 16 U.S.C. …

June 4, 2026

From Technical to Substantive: ICE Redefines Form I-9 Violations

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Antonelli)

As an employment and labor attorney, I interact with Human Resources professionals almost every day.  While their specific roles vary from employer to employer, there is always some degree of familiarity because Human Resources departments are involved in the entire employment lifecycle.  From talent acquisition and benefits administration to performance reviews and personnel management, Human Resources departments are usually involved at every step.  Stated differently, Human Resources professionals are busy.

One of their most critical tasks is onboarding because it is the very first interaction between an employer and its new employee.  The onboarding process involves training, orientation, and plenty of forms related to payroll, benefits, technology/IT, and a Form I-9 which demonstrates an employee’s identity and authorization to work in in the United States.

On March 16, 2026, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) revised nearly 30-year-old guidance related to Forms I-9 when it issued an updated guidance fact sheet that exposes employers to monetary penalties over what, until recently, were mere paperwork errors.

Since the 1990s, ICE has categorized Form I-9 violations into technical and substantive violations.  When the former occurs, employers receive time (typically at least 10 business days) to make corrections.  When the latter occurs, an employer may receive a monetary fine.  While those classifications remain, the standard for what constitutes a substantive error has changed meaningfully.  What used to be a technical violation such an administrative or procedural error or omission could now be deemed an automatic substantive violation that could result in a fine of $288 to $2,861.

For instance, if a Form I-9 is missing the employee’s date of birth or their date of hire, ICE may deem such an omission as a substantive violation.  …

May 29, 2026

Data Centers, Grid Reliability, and Large Load Regulation: Recent Developments in Pennsylvania and the Region

Pittsburgh, PA

Data Center Development Alert

(by Justine Kasznica and Susanna Bagdasarova)

Pennsylvania’s data center market continues to evolve rapidly as policymakers, regulators, and grid operators respond to growing electricity demand and reliability concerns associated with large-load customers and AI-driven infrastructure development. Recent actions by Governor Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), and PJM Interconnection (PJM) underscore the increasingly complex regulatory and commercial landscape facing data center developers, operators, utilities, and investors in the region.

On May 27, 2026, Governor Shapiro released the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) standards, a new set of guidelines for data center development in Pennsylvania, as previewed in his 2026-2027 budget proposal. To qualify for Commonwealth support, including tax benefits and eligibility for streamlined permitting, developers will need to demonstrate engagement in four core areas: (1) energy affordability, (2) transparency and community engagement, (3) workforce and economic development, and (4) environmental protection. The GRID Standards require each developer seeking such incentives to submit plans to outlining its commitment to:

  • Provide for its energy needs without imposing additional costs on other utility ratepayers;
  • Create a community outreach plan that includes holding public meetings and consulting with local governments to promote public engagement and transparency;
  • Commit to a minimum of $250 million in cumulative new investment, facilitate local job creation and develop community benefit agreements with the local jurisdiction; and
  • Submit a sustainability plan detailing how it will protect water and energy resources and commit to environmental protection standards.

On May 13, 2026, the PUC issued a Final Order establishing what it described as a “first-of-its-kind” model tariff framework for large-load customers, including data centers, which is intended to guide electric distribution companies as they evaluate and serve such customers. …

May 27, 2026

Governor Shapiro Proposes 2026–27 Budget That Includes Standards for Data Center Development

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

On February 3, 2026, Governor Shapiro announced a 2026–27 budget proposal that includes the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) standards for data center development in Pennsylvania. Press Release, Commw. of Pa., “Governor Shapiro Unveils 2026–27 Budget Proposal to Keep Doing What’s Working in Pennsylvania: Cutting Costs, Growing the Economy, Strengthening Public Safety, Funding Education, and Getting Stuff Done for Pennsylvanians” (Feb. 3, 2026). According to the press release, the GRID standards are intended to balance Pennsylvania’s unique position to be a leader in the data center development and AI-related infrastructure space, with the concerns many stakeholders share about potential impacts on communities, utility bills, and the environment. Id. The Shapiro administration says that for these reasons, the GRID standards are built on the following four core principles applicable to developers seeking permitting advantages and state incentives:

  • Protecting Energy and Water Resources: Developers must either provide their own power generation or fully fund any new generation required for their projects. This is designed to mitigate cost increases to existing ratepayers, including residential and commercial customers. In addition, developers must comply with environmental requirements, specifically water conservation and sustainable resource use.
  • Transparency and Community Engagement: Developers must meet heightened disclosure obligations and engage directly and transparently with stakeholder communities. This principle responds to Pennsylvanians’ concerns over limited visibility into prior projects and aims to ensure early and ongoing public involvement.
  • Delivering Local Jobs and Community Benefits: Developers must prioritize hiring and training local labor and enter into community benefit agreements.

    • …

May 27, 2026

PADEP Presents Updates to EQB on Multiple Pending Oil and Gas Rulemaking Petitions

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

At the March 10, 2026, Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) meeting, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) offered updates on several pending oil and gas rulemaking petitions. The petitions cover a range of issues, including unconventional well setbacks, financial assurance, on-site fluid processing, well plugging procedures, and electronic plan management.

Unconventional Oil and Gas Well Setback Petition
As reported in Vol. 43, No. 1 (2026) of this Newsletter, the EQB accepted this Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project rulemaking petition to increase setbacks from unconventional oil and gas operations for further study in December 2025. At the EQB meeting, PADEP reported that the rulemaking petition is currently being analyzed, that several agency programs and toxicologists are evaluating the studies included with the petition, and the Bureau of Regulatory Counsel is conducting a legal review. PADEP said it intends to deliver a recommendation on the proposed rulemaking to the EQB by the end of 2026.

Shale Well Bonding Petitions
The EQB accepted rulemaking these petitions in November 2021 to increase bonding for conventional and shale wells. Act 96, which became law in 2022, bars EQB changes to conventional well bonding for 10 years, but the shale bonding rulemaking petition remains pending. PADEP indicated funding is allocated this fiscal year for an actuarial study to determine adequate financial assurance for plugging unconventional wells, but PADEP’s timeline for completing review of the rulemaking petition is uncertain. …

May 27, 2026

PADEP Announces Rescission of Oil and Gas Civil Penalty Technical Guidance Document and Replaces It with Two Civil Penalty Standard Operating Procedures

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

On March 28, 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin rescinding its technical guidance document (TGD) on civil penalty assessments in the agency’s Office of Oil and Gas Management. 56 Pa. Bull. 1778 (Mar. 28, 2026). In the notice, PADEP also stated that it would replace its prior civil penalty assessment guide with two new standard operating procedure (SOP) documents relating to civil penalties for oil and gas violations, one for unconventional operations and one for conventional operations. See Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Calculating Civil Penalty Assessments for Unconventional Oil and Gas Operations” (Feb. 2026); Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Calculating Civil Penalty Assessments for Conventional Oil and Gas Operations” (Feb. 2026).

PADEP also issued a new SOP for identifying, tracking, and resolving oil and gas violations, which supersedes the now-rescinded TGD “Standards and Guidelines for Identifying, Tracking, and Resolving Oil and Gas Violations” (Doc ID. No. 820-4000-001, issued Jan. 17, 2015). See Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Identifying, Tracking, and Resolving Oil and Gas Violations” (Feb. 2026). Unlike TGDs, which undergo formal public comment periods, SOPs are internal agency documents that PADEP can revise at its discretion without public input.

Unconventional Civil Penalty SOP
This SOP guides PADEP staff in calculating civil penalties for violations related to unconventional oil and gas operations and includes statutory maximum penalties under the various environmental laws covered by the SOP: the Oil and Gas Act ($75,000 plus $5,000 per day that the violation continues), the Clean Streams Law ($10,000 per day), the Solid Waste Management Act ($25,000 per day), and the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act ($10,000, plus $500 for each day the violation continues). …

May 27, 2026

PADEP Introduces New Bureau of Permitting Coordination

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

On January 27, 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced its Major Projects Permitting Division (MPPD) (formerly the Regional Permit Coordination Office), following the agency’s reorganization of permitting functions within the new Bureau of Permitting Coordination. See News Release, PADEP, “Getting Permitting Done: DEP Achieved Historic Success in Permitting in 2025, Eliminates Longstanding Backlog” (Jan. 27, 2026); see also Commw. of Pa., “Major Projects Permitting Division,” here. The Bureau of Permitting Coordination is now comprised of the MPPD and the Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development (SPEED) program.

The MPPD is staffed like the state’s regional programs responsible for Chapter 102 (Erosion and Sediment Control) and Chapter 105 (General Permits) permitting, and consists of a team of engineering and environmental reviewers. Covered projects include Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-regulated natural gas transmission pipelines, large-scale linear infrastructure, transportation projects, and projects with complex engineering or geologic considerations. The Division supports and coordinates statewide permitting for major economic development projects, ensuring efficiency and consistency in Chapter 102 and Chapter 105 approvals.

MPPD’s core functions include:

  • Project review and decision making on Chapter 102 and 105 permits;
  • Statewide engineering support on trenchless technology, geologic hazards, contaminated sites, complex bedrock, landslides, coal ash, and acid-producing rock; cross-program alignment with regional offices, oil and gas, dam safety and flood protection, mining programs, and county conservation districts;
  • Technical collaboration with the Bureau of Waterways, Engineering, and Wetlands and the Bureau of Clean Water;

    • …

May 27, 2026

Interest Groups Submit GHG Cap and Tax Petition to the EQB

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

 On February 5, 2026, environmental and public interest groups submitted a 495-page demand urging the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to act on a rulemaking petition originally filed in November 2018 by 192 petitioners. The petition requested the adoption of regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 14 Pennsylvania industries producing at least 25,000 tons of emissions annually, including cement, iron, lead, petroleum products, coal mining, electricity generation, oil and gas production, natural gas and carbon dioxide suppliers, and fuel distributors. The proposed regulation, entitled the Stability and Affordability Via Emissions Reduction (SAVER) Regulation, aims to achieve net-zero emissions in Pennsylvania by 2052.

The EQB accepted the petition for study in April 2019 but took no further action. Instead, in October 2019, Governor Tom Wolf issued an executive order directing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to draft regulations targeting carbon pollution from power plants, consistent with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The resulting regulation was proposed for public comment in November 2020 and finalized in April 2022 after a two-and-a-half-year process. The RGGI regulation, and subsequent legal challenges to it, have been covered extensively in previous editions of this Newsletter, including Vol. 39, No. 2 (2022) and Vol. 40, No. 4 (2023).

After taking office, Governor Josh Shapiro established a RGGI Working Group in April 2023 to evaluate the merits of the state’s membership in RGGI. In September 2023, the group issued a memorandum supporting a cap-and-invest program for energy generation. …

May 27, 2026

OSMRE Issues Final Rule Amending Pennsylvania’s SMCRA Program

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has issued a final rule approving an amendment to Pennsylvania’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) program, effective February 17, 2026. See 91 Fed. Reg. 1696 (Jan. 15, 2026). This action confirms that Pennsylvania’s updated program remains consistent with federal SMCRA standards and gives the commonwealth continued primacy to administer and enforce surface coal mining and reclamation within its borders.

Act 32 of 2017 requires permit applicants to ensure the restoration of pre-mining flows and biological communities in waters affected by subsidence. 52 Pa. Stat. § 1406.5(j). This aligns with Pennsylvania’s administrative code, specifically 25 Pa. Code § 86.37(a)(3), which mandates that applicants demonstrate no presumptive evidence of potential pollution.

The amendment maintains Pennsylvania’s regulatory program as more stringent than federal standards, particularly 30 C.F.R. §§ 784.14, 784.21, and 817.41, and section 516 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1266. Pennsylvania’s approach imposes a duty on applicants to demonstrate the absence of presumptive pollution evidence, while federal standards focus on minimizing disturbances. Section 5(j) of Act 32 specifies that the exemption from presumptive pollution evidence applies only if the permit application includes plans for restoring pre-mining conditions. This ensures consistency with the pre-mining uses of Pennsylvania’s waters.

The amendment also introduces a more structured approach to compliance monitoring and enforcement, ensuring that permit applicants provide more comprehensive documentation and evidence to support their restoration plans. For communities and landowners, the amendment is expected to enhance environmental protection by reinforcing reclamation obligations, clarifying water quality and land restoration expectations, and ensuring that financial assurances are sufficient for long-term site stability. …

May 20, 2026

EPA Proposal Aims to Clarify Scope of Construction Activities Allowed Prior to Issuance of NSR Permit

Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, PA

Environmental Alert

(by Gina Buchman, Gary Steinbauer, and Christina Puhnaty)

To clarify the Clean Air Act’s preconstruction permitting requirements, EPA issued a proposed rule to revise the definition of “begin actual construction” in its New Source Review (NSR) regulations to allow the construction of components that do not emit air pollutants prior to obtaining an NSR permit, such as support structures for utility services, certain concrete pads and foundations, office buildings, and certain storage buildings. See 91 Fed. Reg. 26958 (May 13, 2026). The proposal would also add a new definition of “pollutant-emitting activities.” EPA’s NSR regulations apply to the construction of new stationary sources and major modifications of existing major stationary sources. If finalized, these revisions will automatically apply to projects seeking an NSR permit from EPA and state, local, or tribal permitting authorities that directly implement EPA’s PSD regulations. States implementing their own SIP-approved NSR programs may need to amend their regulations to incorporate the revised definitions proposed by EPA.

As currently written, EPA’s definition of “begin actual construction” at 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.165, 51.166, § 52.21, and Appendix S to Part 51 prohibits “on-site construction activities on an emissions unit which are permanent in nature” prior to obtaining an NSR permit. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.166(a)(7)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(a)(2)(iii). These construction activities include the installation of building supports and foundations, laying underground pipework, and the construction of permanent storage structures. In past guidance, EPA has also construed the term “emissions unit” in these regulations to include any installations necessary to accommodate that unit.

EPA now proposes to revise the definition of “begin actual construction” and add a new definition for “pollutant-emitting activities” in 40 C.F.R. …

Top