Editors' Summary: Last year, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit created grave concern in the financial services industry. In May 1990, the court, in United States v. Fleet Factors Corp. held that a secured lender that had a mere "capacity to influence" a corporation's treatment of hazardous waste could lose the protection of the security interest exemption under CERCLA §101(20)(A), and thus be held liable for cleanup costs under CERCLA. To alleviate the uncertainty generated by this decision and to restrict this judicial broadening of liability under CERCLA, on June 5, 1991, EPA proposed a rule intended to clarify lender liability under CERCLA. The proposed rule specifies a range of permissible actions that may be taken by secured lenders without losing the protection of the security interest exemption. The authors examine this proposed rule and its ramifications. They argue that while the proposed rule is a constructive step toward resolving uncertainty in the lending community, it does not go far enough. First, they argue that the proposed rule does not cover private Superfund litigation seeking to apportion liability among private parties. Second, the proposed rule does not contain the depth of analysis needed to provide certainty of protection for parties utilizing less traditional types of financial products currently available in the marketplace. Furthermore, holders of passive ownership interests, such as bank trust departments, are not adequately protected under the proposed rule. The authors thus conclude that the impact of Fleet Factors will not be eliminated by EPA's promulgation of this rule. Finally, the authors suggest actions that secured lenders might take to minimize their environmental liability exposure under CERCLA.