.

Client Alert

The Defense Production Act: The Obscure Law that Industry and Government Should be Talking About Today (and for the Foreseeable Future)

March 19, 2020

by Alex Hontos, Kirk Schuler, and Chris DeLong

Download as a PDF

Share this page

As policy-makers and industry look for responses to the COVID-19 crisis, one tool is in plain sight: the Defense Production Act of 1950 (the “DPA”).  The DPA, already on the books, is tailor-made for the national effort required to respond to COVID-19.  And yesterday, March 18, 2020, the Trump Administration announced it will invoke the DPA.  Along with existing Federal acquisition and grant-making authority, we expect the DPA will be used immediately to secure the equipment and supplies needed to combat the virus over the coming months—and given its loan and loan guarantee authorities, the DPA might have an even larger economic impact on industries from healthcare to manufacturing to construction to logistics.  This briefing is a primer on the DPA for industry and policy-makers.

Overview of the DPA

Congress first enacted the DPA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4501 et seq., during the Korean War.  The purpose of the DPA is to provide the President with various authorities to regulate private industry to facilitate national defense.  In particular, the DPA confers upon the President an “array of authorities to shape national defense preparedness programs and to take appropriate steps to maintain and enhance the domestic industrial base.”

The term “national defense” is defined broadly.  While “national defense” encompasses traditional military conflicts, critical infrastructure to assist a foreign nation, and, in a relatively recent amendment, “homeland security,” it also includes “emergency preparedness activities” under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §§5195 et seq.).  The Stafford Act—which is routinely invoked to respond to public health emergencies and was recently invoked by the Trump Administration—defines emergency preparedness as “all those activities and measures designed or undertaken to prepare for or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population, to deal with the immediate emergency conditions which would be created by the hazard, and to effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency restoration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by the hazard.”

The aegis of “national defense” includes the ability of the government to prioritize its needs over the needs of the private sector and increase supply of materials as it deems necessary.  To do so, the government may, among other things, purchase goods and supplies from the private sector, make direct loans and loan guarantees, transfer government equipment, prioritize private production, and incentivize the private sector’s production through subsidies and cash awards. It may also authorize voluntary agreements in private industry, and purchases or make purchase commitments of industrial resources or critical technology items.

Stripped to its core, the DPA has two primary functions: (1) to guarantee public access to goods already being produced in the private sector (i.e., priority and allocation) and (2) to ensure there is an adequate supply of critical items for public use going forward.  These functions will be explained in more detail below.

The DPA Is Not Limited to Military Conflict

While the DPA is usually invoked to support traditional “national defense” objectives such as the production of tanks and bombers, it can be used to ameliorate the effects of domestic emergencies.  For example, the DPA was used to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize contracts to support the Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System that was created to protect southern Louisiana from future flooding after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  Even earlier, the DPA was used by the Department of Energy to ensure California utilities retained a sufficient supply of natural gas to avoid the threat of electrical blackouts in 2001.  More recently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency made use of the DPA during the 2017 disaster season to prioritize contracts for food and bottled water, pre-manufactured housing units, and the restoration of electrical transmission and distribution systems in Puerto Rico.  In other words, the DPA has been used in many contexts to authorize various federal agencies, and not just the Department of Defense, to bolster America’s “national defense” as broadly defined under the DPA. COVID-19, and the national response to it, is surely within the “national defense.”

How the Administration Might Use the DPA to Respond to COVID-19

The specifics of the Trump Administration’s future use of the DPA are still unclear.  But what is clear is the President has broad authority to craft and implement solutions with private industry under the DPA.  Presumably in the coming days and weeks, the Administration will use or consider using the DPA to ensure access to critical healthcare equipment and facilities.  We envision the medical device, manufacturing, construction, logistics, food production, and transportation sectors will all be affected.  Further, the ability to offer loans and loan guarantees might affect the financial services and banking sectors.  Industry should anticipate outreach from the government, understand the DPA’s options and the Administration’s specific proposals (when they come), and have proposals ready to deploy to maintain the “national defense” and best utilize the DPA’s provisions.

For example, the government could back loans to finance the construction of new COVID-19 medical facilities.  Or the government could loan directly funds to construct the same facility.  The government could also incentivize the production of PPE and medical supplies, through loans, subsidies, or direct purchases.  The DPA could be—and should be—central to the response to immediate COVID-19 shortages (e.g., hospital beds, medical supplies, ventilators) but also part of the longer term solution to maintaining economic security and stability for the United States.

DPA FAQs

Several questions may come to mind regarding this old but little known law.  Below are some answers to common questions to guide the reader’s understanding of how this law may be used to aid the nation’s response to COVID-19.

  1. What is the scope of the DPA—i.e., how does the DPA define “national defense”?
    Broadly.  Under the DPA, “[t]he term ‘national defense’ means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq.] and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.”  50 U.S.C. § 4552(14).  If necessary, Congress could of course amend this definition to further extend the reach of the DPA to address issues of national importance.
  2. Who has the authority to implement the DPA powers under the Act?
    The President is afforded the authority to implement powers under the DPA.  Under Executive Order 13603, National Defense Resource Preparedness, issued in 2012, however, the President has delegated his authority to department and agency heads.  While such authority is most frequently used by, and commonly associated with, the Department of Defense (DOD), the President has delegated his authority to numerous other executive departments and agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Commerce.
  3. What kind of specific relief can the President or his delegate authorize under the DPA?
    Loan Guarantees (Section 301) - The President may designate any Federal Agency or Federal reserve bank to guarantee private loans to finance a contractor, subcontractor, provider of critical infrastructure, or any other person to engaged in an Authorized Activity, which supports production of supplies or capabilities to address a national emergency.  A loan guaranteed under Section 301 will bear a reasonable interest rate, to be determined by the Treasury Secretary based on the average yields of the outstanding obligations of the Treasury.  There are four qualifying criteria for a guarantee: (1)  the activity to be financed must support an essential product, industrial resource, technology, or material, essential to the national effort; (2) the guarantee must be reasonably necessary to secure private financing; (3) a guarantee must be the most cost effective, expedient, and practical alternative to support that activity; and (4) the applicant and pledged security must provide a reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan.  The security may either be 20% of the principal of the loan or a performance bond, insurance, collateral, or any other security acceptable to the Federal Agency.
    Loans (Section 302) - The President may authorize loans to private business enterprises for many activities to support the national defense, including but not limited to production of essential goods, expansion and protection of industrial capacity, development of technology, and exploitation of natural resources.  A loan under Section 302 will bear a reasonable interest rate, to be determined by the Treasury Secretary based on the current average yields of the outstanding obligations of the Treasury.  The security required for a loan authorized under Section 302 are less stringent than that of a loan guarantee.  A prospective borrower must demonstrate only reasonable assurance of repayment.
    Purchases (Section 303(a)) – The President may make provision to purchase or commit to purchasing for Government use or resale any resource or technology that is essential to “national defense” and that, absent such purchase or commitment to purchase, would not be reasonably expected to provide for national defense in a timely manner.
    Subsidies to Producers (Section 303(c)) – The President has broad authority to subsidize any domestically produced resources to ensure continued supply, maximized production, and stable prices for such resources.
    Government Procurement (Section 303(e)(a)) – The President may authorize the purchase and installation of any equipment, facilities, processes or improvements to government-owned facilities.
    Private Use of Government Equipment (Section 303(e)(b)) – The President may authorize the purchase and installation of new equipment in privately owned facilities.
    Government Improvement of Private Facilities (Section 303(e)(c), (d)) – The President may authorize the improvement or modification of privately owned facilities in conjunction with any of the President’s actions under Section 301, 302, or 303.  The President may also provide for the sale or transfer of any government-owned equipment to the owner of a privately owned facility.
  4. How is this paid?
    The Defense Production Act Fund, established by the Act, is a separate fund at the Treasury Department used carry out the provisions and purposes of the DPA.  Loans and loan guarantees are funded by congressional appropriations.
  5. What is the DPA’s “priority” system?
    The President is authorized to require that contracts or orders essential to national defense take priority over all other contracts or orders, and to require essential contracts and orders be accepted before any other contract or order.  This applies to “any other contract or order” except for employment contracts.  Under the DPA, the Defense Priorities and Allocations System institutes a rating system for contracts and purchase orders, with the highest priority contracts labeled “DX.”  The next priority is “DO” contracts, and then unrated contracts.
  6. What is the DPA’s “allocation” system?
    The President may allocate materials, services, resources, and facilities in whatever manner the President deems necessary to national defense.  Allocation authority of private resources has not been used since the Cold War.
  7. What industries are covered?
    The broad definitions of critical technology, services, materials, and facilities, together with the broad definition of “national defense,” means that the DPA covers virtually every industry engaged in production, rendering of healthcare or logistics or construction services, or exploitation of natural resources in the United States.
  8. Does the DPA provide any protections for private-sector partners?
    Yes.  Certain coordinated efforts authorized by the DPA between traditional competitors are exempt from anti-trust laws, i.e., where agreements between competing private industry interests could generally be subject to legal sanction under anti-trust statutes or contract law, agreements under the Act are not.  The DPA also provides for judicial review in the district courts, and private persons may also have limited indemnification from prioritizing federal orders. Indemnification, however, extends only to shield a contractor from liability arising as a consequence of re-prioritization.  It does not shield the contractor from all potential liability resulting from the contract.
  9. Is this the nationalization of private industry?
    No, it is an opportunity for the private sector to partner with the public sector—not unlike the goal of public/private partnerships—to help the government address the nation’s needs in times of crisis.  Although the DPA has its roots at a time when President Truman nationalized the steel industry to avert a steel worker’s strike, the President’s actions were deemed unconstitutional and several titles of the DPA were thereafter terminated by Congress.  The titles that remain in the DPA serve as useful tools for collaboration between private industry and the government.
  10. When does the DPA terminate, if ever?
    The DPA has been reauthorized over 50 times since its enactment in 1950, with the last reauthorization occurring in 2019 by Section 1791 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232).  This latest reauthorization extending the termination of nearly all DPA authorities by six years to September 30, 2025.  Some DPA authorities, like the Exon-Florio Amendment (which established government review of the acquisition of U.S. companies by foreigners) and the DPA’s anti-trust protections for certain voluntary industry agreements, have been made permanent by Congress.

Additional Resources:

Finally, additional resources are available online that describe the DPA, and it is certain additional resources will become available in the future as this law is used to combat COVID-19.  For now, readers may want to consult:

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.