The Nickel Report

On August 16, 2024, federal agencies released their “Spring 2024” Unified Regulatory Agenda detailing the regulations that they are developing over the next several months as well as long-term actions planned over the next few years.

The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued a new policy “to ensure that Tribal Nations will be notified whenever mineral exploration work is proposed on BLM-managed lands[,]” including notice-level operations.

On September 5, 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concurrently issued a direct final rule and proposed rule to change the reporting period and submission deadline for its reporting rule for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

On Friday, August 31, 2024, both houses of the California legislature approved a bill (SB 219) making targeted changes to the SB 253 and 261 climate disclosure obligations, which are discussed at length in our previous post.

On July 25, 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to designate acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0), acrylonitrile (CASRN 107-13-1), benzenamine (CASRN 62-53-3), vinyl chloride (CASRN 75-01-4), and 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) (CASRN 101-14-4) as high-priority substances for risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Recent developments could impact implementation timing and compliance obligations under California’s landmark climate emissions disclosure and financial risk reporting laws that were enacted last year.

States across the country continue to add to the growing patchwork of restrictions for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in products, posing challenges for those who manufacture, distribute, and sell products in the U.S. In 2024 alone, states introduced nearly 250 bills addressing PFAS, including restrictions for PFAS in products. Thirteen states have already enacted laws regulating PFAS in products, including (as previously reported) Minnesota and California. In the past few months, Maine, Colorado, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island have joined the list, each with its own unique and nuanced set of requirements, deadlines and exemptions. The variations in these state laws presents a complicated compliance matrix, necessitating an informed and strategic approach, particularly for companies navigating the complexities of extensive, global supply chains. Below, we provide our analysis of these new laws that companies selling products in these states should be aware of.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued a final rule to make adjustments to its location and maintenance fees for unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites. The rule became effective on July 1, 2024. 

The new fees are in effect for the 2025 assessment year, which starts September 1, 2024.

On June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, CO, (23-975), a case challenging the scope of an environmental review conducted by the Surface Transportation Board (“Board”) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA”) for an 88-mile rail line project in Utah. The question before the Court is whether NEPA requires federal agencies to study the environmental impacts of proposed projects beyond the proximate effects of the action that an agency has no authority to regulate.

The Mining Law of 1872 allows people to prospect for valuable minerals on public lands. Prospectors can “locate” or “stake” mining claims. In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed a regulation to limit mining claimants from locating more than one mill site for each mining claim. Later, in 2003, BLM promulgated a Final Rule withdrawing the proposed 1999 regulation. In a decision filed on June 25, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to uphold the 2003 Final Rule.