EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL Survives Legal Challenge: Stricter Water Quality Regulation of Farms, Municipalities, Industry, and Business May Follow

K&L Gates LLP

On July 6, 2015, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously rejected a challenge brought by agricultural and builder groups to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay “Total Maximum Daily Load” (“TMDL”). [1] The decision paves the way for full implementation of the TMDL’s comprehensive pollutant reduction plan for sources of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL,[2] which EPA issued in December 2010, identifies the total amount of certain constituents (i.e., the total maximum daily load) that the watershed can contribute to the bay in order to restore water quality to a level that will support protected water uses (such as fisheries and recreation).  Based on these total maximum daily loads, the TMDL then allocates individualized pollutant loadings to “point sources” (such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial dischargers) and “non-point source” sectors (such as agriculture and stormwater runoff) in the affected portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The TMDL also establishes deadlines for the states to develop and implement plans to come into compliance with the designated loadings.

The plaintiffs in the case argued that the source- and sector-specific pollutant allocations and compliance timelines exceeded EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act,[3] claiming that the statute only confers on EPA the authority to establish a “total maximum daily load” for impaired waters (if the states fail to do so), but is silent with respect to EPA’s authority to direct TMDL implementation in the states.[4] The court disagreed, finding EPA’s inclusion of the contested TMDL elements to be a legitimate policy choice that was grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the Act. In this regard, the Third Circuit affirmed a September 2013 decision of the federal district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which similarly upheld the Bay TMDL.[5]

The plaintiff agricultural and builder groups may attempt to obtain reconsideration by the Court of Appeals, or seek to appeal the Third Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in the meantime, EPA and the Bay states will move forward with implementation of the TMDL and the states’ accompanying watershed implementation plans (“WIPs”), which collectively call for significant pollution reductions from farms, municipalities, and industrial dischargers.

1. Establishment of TMDLs under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act[6] governs the interrelated processes by which the states and EPA establish water quality standards, identify impaired waters, and create TMDLs for those waters.

First, the states are required to establish “water quality standards,” consisting of (1) designating one or more uses (e.g., fishing, recreation, agriculture) for each federally-regulated water body, and (2) promulgating the narrative or numeric water quality criteria necessary to protect these uses.[7] EPA must approve or disapprove the states’ water quality standards, and, if the latter, promulgate its own water quality standards for the state.[8]

Once water quality standards are in effect, states must identify the water bodies that are failing to attain those standards using traditional methods of pollution control under the Clean Water Act, such as the imposition of effluent limits on point source dischargers through national pollutant discharge elimination system (“NPDES”) permits.[9] This list of waters is often referred to as the “impaired waters list” or “Section 303(d) list.” States must submit their impaired waters lists to EPA for approval, and if EPA disapproves, EPA must itself identify impaired waters in the state.[10]

The states then must establish a TMDL for each identified impaired water. Specifically, under Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the Act, the states “shall establish… the total maximum daily load” of pollutants for each impaired water, which “shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety….” [11] The states must submit their TMDLs to EPA for approval, and if EPA disapproves, EPA shall “establish such loads for such waters as [EPA] determines necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable to such waters….”[12] Once EPA establishes a TMDL, the state “shall incorporate [it] into its current plan” for implementing various requirements of the Clean Water Act, which EPA refers to as “water quality management plans.”[13]

Pursuant to these statutory provisions, EPA and the states have developed approximately 68,000 TMDL’s across the country. TMDLs have become an increasingly important Clean Water Act tool because they provide a means for EPA to pursue pollution reductions from non-point sources (including most of the agricultural sector), which otherwise are not subject to federal regulation or permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act. After more than 40 years of aggressive Clean Water Act enforcement against point source dischargers, non-point source pollution is often viewed as the lowest-hanging fruit remaining when it comes to achieving additional improvements in the quality of our nation’s waters.

2. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL

In October of 2007, after more than 30 years of coordinated multi-state efforts to restore the degraded water quality of the Bay, the seven Bay jurisdictions and EPA reached consensus that they would jointly develop and EPA would establish a Bay TMDL. Similarly unsatisfied with the pace of restoration efforts, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others brought suit against EPA in January 2009 to force aggressive federal action to cleanup the Bay.[14] EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation reached a settlement agreement in May 2010 that required EPA to establish a TMDL for the watershed by December 31, 2010. Accordingly, EPA issued the Chesapeake Bay TMDL on December 29, 2010, after a period of intense wrangling between EPA and the Bay states over the TMDL’s form and content. The TMDL was based in substantial part on the states’ Phase I watershed implementation plans (“WIPs”), which the states developed with significant EPA oversight and influence.

As noted by the federal district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, “[t]he Chesapeake Bay TMDL… is the largest and most complex TMDL” created since the inception of the Clean Water Act.[15] EPA itself describes the TMDL as “a historic and comprehensive ‘pollution diet’ with rigorous accountability measures to initiate sweeping actions to restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s streams, creeks and rivers.”[16]

The Bay TMDL begins by setting total maximum loadings for nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment in 92 discrete impaired segments of the Bay watershed (276 total loads). These loadings were developed using water quality monitoring networks and predictive modeling. EPA’s total load determinations were not challenged before the Third Circuit, although the plaintiffs did (unsuccessfully) object to some aspects of EPA’s modeling before the Middle District of Pennsylvania.[17]

Next, the TMDL contains “waste load allocations” (“WLAs”) for point sources and “load allocations” (“LAs”) for non-point source sectors that allocate the total loads between significant sources of pollution in the watershed. These WLAs and LAs are not self-executing. However, pursuant to EPA regulation, NPDES permit writers must incorporate permit limits that are consistent with the WLA’s when point source permits come up for renewal.[18] With respect to non-point sources, EPA required the states to commit to specific regulatory actions in their WIPs to provide “reasonable assurance” that the required reductions in pollution will come to fruition. EPA based the WLAs and LAs in substantial part on the allocations proposed in the states’ Phase I WIPs. However, in a handful of instances, EPA rejected the states’ proposed allocations, instead setting forth “backstop” allocations, adjustments, and actions that EPA thought necessary to reasonably assure that the overall load reductions are achieved.  For instance, in Pennsylvania, EPA shifted 50 percent of Pennsylvania’s urban stormwater load from the LA (non-point source) to the WLA (point source) category, signaling EPA efforts to control stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas via NPDES permit requirements for municipal separate storm sewer systems (“MS4”).[19]

The TMDL also sets interim and final deadlines for the states to identify and implement all control measures necessary to achieve the pollution reductions called for in the TMDL. The states submitted their more refined Phase II WIPs to EPA in 2012, and are required to submit Phase III WIPs to EPA by 2017. The TMDL requires that at least 60 percent of all necessary pollution control measures be implemented by 2017, with full implementation by 2025.[20] If the states fail to meet these deadlines, EPA has indicated (some would say threatened) that it will take aggressive action to correct any deficiencies, including, but not limited to, expanding the scope of the NPDES permit program, requiring additional pollution reductions from point source dischargers, prohibiting new or expanded discharges, increasing federal enforcement, and conditioning or redirecting federal grant money.[21]

3. The District Court Decision

Shortly after EPA issued the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed a complaint against EPA in the federal district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Other agricultural groups and the National Association of Home Builders eventually joined in the suit. Environmental groups and associations representing municipal wastewater agencies intervened on EPA’s behalf.

The plaintiffs argued that the TMDL exceeded EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act because it represented an unlawful federal implementation plan, impeding on the states’ right to implement a TMDL as each state sees fit.[22] Specifically, the plaintiffs objected to the source- and sector- specific pollution allocations, EPA backstop measures, and implementation deadlines as unlawful under Section 303(d) of the Act, which only confers on EPA the authority to establish a “total maximum daily load” for impaired waters “at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards….”[23] In the plaintiffs’ view, EPA should have halted after establishing the total pollutant loadings for each of the 92 impaired segments of the watershed, and left implementation to the states.

In a lengthy opinion issued on September 13, 2013, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of EPA.[24] The court found that the TMDL did not constitute an unlawful federal implementation plan because the states contributed significantly to the development of the TMDL, the TMDL left room for the states to develop implementation strategies, and the contested TMDL elements were not technically binding on the states.[25] The court also rejected procedural arguments regarding the adequacy of the 45-day comment period on the draft TMDL and the sufficiency of documentation relating to EPA’s modeling efforts.[26] Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to carry their heavy burden in establishing that alleged modeling flaws rendered EPA’s action in issuing the TMDL arbitrary and capricious.[27]

4. Appeal to the Third Circuit

The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before the appellate court, the plaintiffs argued that EPA did not have the authority under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to issue a TMDL that (1) incorporates pollutant limits for individual sources and source sectors, (2) requires states to provide “reasonable assurance” that such limits will be achieved, and (3) establishes deadlines for states to put control measures and practices in place.[28] Under the familiar Chevron[29]two-stepframework for evaluating the legality of agency statutory interpretations, EPA responded that Congress left a gap for EPA to fill by leaving the term “total maximum daily load” undefined (under Chevron step 1), and thus the court should defer to EPA’s reasonable interpretation of the provision as including the contested elements (under Chevron step 2).[30] The plaintiffs, on the other hand, countered that § 303(d) is clear and unambiguous under Chevron step 1—EPA may only establish a “total maximum daily load” at a specified “level,” and none of the contested TMDL elements, according to plaintiffs, are fairly encompassed within this limited grant of authority.[31] Both sides also cited to case law, ancillary statutory provisions, statutory context and structure, and legislative history in support of their respective positions.

On July 6, 2015, a three-judge panel of Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion siding with the EPA and affirming the district court’s judgment.[32] Under Chevron step 1, the court found that the term “total maximum daily load” (in particular, the word “total”) is ambiguous and susceptible to multiple interpretations, implicitly authorizing EPA to fill the gap created by Congress.[33] In this regard, the court identified several factors that (arguably) suggest that a TMDL can include more than just a single number for each impaired water. For instance, the court noted that § 303(d) of the Act requires a TMDL to be set at a level that accounts for “seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality.”[34] The court indicated that “[i]t would be strange to require the EPA to take into account these specific considerations but at the same time command the agency to excise them from its final product.”[35] Similarly, the court noted that the Administrative Procedures Act requires an agency provide sufficient information about how it reached its final decision, and “it would fall afoul of this requirement if it published only a number with no supporting information.”[36] The court did not explain how these factors applied any differently to the TMDL than in any other agency rulemaking, where agencies always document their consideration of a variety of factors in reaching a final decision, but place this analysis in supporting documents (such as a preamble) rather than in the actual, binding regulatory text.

Continuing with its Chevron step 1 analysis, the court found that EPA’s interpretation was consistent with the structure and purposes of the Clean Water Act because it would account for pollution from non-point sources and further the Act’s goal of achieving water quality standards in a timely manner.[37] The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ federalism concerns, determining that EPA’s interpretation did not require a “clear statement” of support from Congress because it did not include any “actual, identifiable land use rule” encroaching on the states’ constitutionally-reserved sphere of authority.[38]

With respect to Chevron step 2, the court concluded that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act was “reasonable and reflects a legitimate policy choice by the agency in administering a less-than-clear statute.”[39] The court indicated that the plaintiffs’ competing reading of the statute, on the other hand, “would stymie the EPA’s ability to coordinate among all the competing possible uses of the resources that affect the Bay.”[40] Ultimately, the court’s decision appears to have been driven by this underlying practical concern regarding the efficacy of the Bay TMDL. To this end, the court indicated that it “defies common sense and experience” to believe, as asserted by the plaintiffs, that the Bay would be cleaned up in the absence of aggressive intervention by EPA.[41]

5. Next Steps

The plaintiffs in the case can now appeal the Third Circuit’s decision by filing a petition for (1) reconsideration before the same three-judge panel, (2) en banc review by the entire slate of Third Circuit judges, and/or (3) writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. If plaintiffs exercise one or more of these options, the ultimate resolution of the case could be months or years away.

Meanwhile, EPA and the states are forging ahead with implementation of the Bay TMDL and the states’ WIPs. The Bay states are currently in the process of implementing their Phase II WIPs and are working toward achievement of their 2014-2015 two year milestones. The next significant deadlines for the states occur in 2017, when they must submit their Phase III WIPs and have practices in place that are designed to achieve 60% of all necessary TMDL pollution reductions. The TMDL timeline calls for EPA to make any necessary modifications to the TMDL in 2017 as well.

One of the huge challenges in meeting TMDL goals is the fact that EPA only has limited “tools in the tool box.” While EPA has, under federal law, authority to regulate point source discharges of pollutants (such as municipal treatment plants), the agency lacks effective regulatory power over most non-point sources. The states, in some cases, have broader regulatory and other programs to address non-point sources, such as stormwater and agriculture, but have been reluctant to exercise those powers for both political and cost reasons.

Most recently, on June 10, 2015, EPA provided interim evaluations to the states regarding their progress toward meeting their 2014-2015 milestones and Phase II WIP commitments. According to these evaluations, several of the states, including Pennsylvania, are not on track to meet one or more of their targets for nitrogen, phosphorous, or sediment, in some cases by significant margins.[42] While the point source sector was by and large meeting or beating its interim milestones, stormwater and agricultural runoff loadings were well over their respective targets. If such trends continue, EPA may begin to take more aggressive federal action to force additional pollution reductions, as promised in the body of the TMDL. EPA has indicated that if non-point source controls for agriculture and other stormwater continue to lag, stricter “backstop” controls may be placed on other sectors, such as municipal sewage plants and industries, even though the latter point source sectors contribute a relative small percentage of nutrients and sediment loadings to the Bay. 

The Bay TMDL literally impacts all communities, economic sectors and landowners within the multi-state watershed that drains water into the Bay. All have a stake in assuring that the efforts to achieve the reductions in pollutants are carried out in a sensible and cost-effective manner. All should carefully monitor the states’ progress in implementing the TMDL and consider how the agencies’ emerging regulatory responses could and will affect their interests.


[1] Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, No. 13-4079, 2015 WL 4069224 (3d Cir. July 6, 2015).

[2] Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Sediment (Dec. 29, 2010), available at http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html.

[3] 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387.

[4] Id. § 1313(d)

[5] Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, 984 F.Supp.2d 289, 303 (M.D. Pa. 2013).

[6] 33 U.S.C. § 1313.

[7] See Id. § 1313(c); 40 C.F.R Part 131.

[8] Id. § 1313(a)(3)(A)–(C).

[9] Id. § 1313(d)(1)(A).

[10] Id. § 1313(d)(2).

[11] Id. § 1313(d)(1)(C).

[12] Id. § 1313(d)(2).

[13] Id. § 1313(d)(2), (e); 40 C.F.R. § 130.6.

[14] Complaint, Fowler v. EPA, No. 1:09-cv-00005-CKK (D.D.C. Jan. 5, 2009).

[15] 984 F.Supp.2d at 30.

[16] Chesapeake Bay TMDL at ES-1.

[17] See 984 F.Supp. 2d at 334–44.

[18] 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).

[19] Chesapeake Bay TMDL at 8-26.

[20] Id. at ES-1.

[21] Id. at ES-13.

[22] 984 F.Supp.2d at 313.

[23] 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d).

[24] 984 F.Supp.2d 289.

[25] Id. at 313–33.

[26] Id. at 333–40.

[27] Id. at 340–44.

[28] Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants at 2, Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, No. 13-4079 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2014).

[29] Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[30] EPA Response Brief, Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, No. 13-4079 (3d Cir. Apr. 2, 2014).

[31] Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants at 6, 9–12, Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, No. 13-4079 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2014).

[32] Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, No. 13-4079, 2015 WL 4069224 (3d Cir. July 6, 2015).

[33] Id. at *12.

[34] Id. (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(C)).

[35] Id.

[36] Id.at *11.

[37] Id. at *12–14, 20.

[38] Id. at *15–20.

[39] Id. at *22.

[40] Id.

[41] Id. at *21.

[42] EPA’s interim assessments are available at http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/RestorationUnderway.html?tab2=2&tab1=4

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

K&L Gates LLP

K&L Gates LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.