1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A Bridge Too Far: Court Vacates FHWA's 2012 Expansion of Its Buy America Waiver

A Bridge Too Far: Court Vacates FHWA's 2012 Expansion of Its Buy America Waiver

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.15.16

On December 22, 2015, the U.S. district court for D.C. vacated the Federal Highway Administration's position, set forth in a December 2012 policy memorandum, that exempted manufactured steel products from the FHWA's Buy America restriction if (a) they had less than 90% steel or iron content or (b) they were "miscellaneous steel or iron products" (i.e., off-the-shelf products necessary to "encase, assemble and construct manufactured products"), causing FHWA on January 6 to rescind the policy memorandum, pending further update. The court held that both of FHWA's "clarifications" related to a 1983 public interest waiver exemption for manufactured products other than steel products; were substantive rules requiring notice and comment; and that, in any event, the 90% content rule was arbitrary and capricious under the current record.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26

PFAS Regulatory Alert: EPA Rolls Back RCRA Proposed Rule on “Hazardous Waste” but Does Not Disturb Proposed RCRA Rule on PFAS

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program....