A Resolution has been proposed to the House for consideration that would recognize the Federal Government’s duty “to create a Green New Deal.” It sets forth a very ambitious 10-year program to mobilize and transform every aspect of American life to combat the threats of climate change by transitioning to an economy based upon 100% clean and renewable energy.
On February 4, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held, in a Clean Air Act (CAA) Citizen Suit, that the U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Board (Board), an independent federal agency, has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to promulgate the accidental release reporting rules required by Section 112(r )(6)( c )(iii) of the CAA. The Board was established by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, but has failed in all these years to issue these rules. The case is Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. U.S. Chem. and Safety Hazard Investigation Bd.
As relief, the District Court directed the Board “to promulgate reporting regulations within 12 months of the date of the District Court’s order.”
President Trump signed an Executive Order yesterday January 31, calling on executive branch departments and agencies to encourage recipients of defined types of new federal awards to use cement, iron, steel, aluminum and certain manufactured products produced in the United States. The order builds on prior authority (Executive Order 13788 (April 18, 2017)) focused on procurements by the departments and agencies themselves. The new order extends the “Buy American” conversation to private parties that receive new support, to promote the use of domestic sources in their onward purchases. It addresses programs that receive Federal financial assistance, 2 C.F.R. § 200.40, for creation, maintenance or repair of infrastructure projects.
On January 31, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous ruling in a commercial speech case, American Beverage Assoc., et al., v. City and County of San Francisco. The Panel held that the lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs must be reversed, and the matter remanded to the lower court because the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that a 2015 San Francisco city ordinance requiring specified health warnings on a host of sugar-sweetened drinks (“WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugars(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”) violated their First Amendment rights.
On January 25, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in the case of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Anadarko E&P Co. v. Houston Cas. Co., et al., characterized as an “interlocutory permissive appeal,” reversing the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting in Beaumont, TX, regarding Anadarko’s insurers’ obligation to pay a significant amount of Anadarko’s legal defense costs that resulted from its liability in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
“[W]e hold that the Joint Venture Provision does not limit the Underwriters’ liability for Anadarko’s defense expenses insured under section III.”
Recently, our colleagues Amanda Halter, and Ashleigh Acevedo published their Client Alert titled BSEE Decommission-in-Place Discussions Present Opportunity discussing the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s (BSEE) Request for Information Regarding Potential Impacts of Decommissioning-in-Place of Pipeline-Related Infrastructure in Deepwater. Takeaways include:
- BSEE is asking for input on technical, safety and environmental and other factors that should be included as decom-in-place decision-making considerations for pipeline infrastructures in deepwater on the Outer Continental shelf (OCS).
There were 442 bills passed by the 115th Congress and signed by the President. Most of these new laws have attracted very little attention, so it may be helpful to review a few of them. The list below provides a glimpse into the myriad issues that face each Congress, and the implementation issues that will be the responsibility of the federal agencies:
• PL 115-265, the Save our Seas Act of 2018. The law reauthorizes and amends the Marine Debris Act, located at 33 U.S.C. § 1952, to “promote international action to remove marine debris”. The law requires the Department of State and other federal agencies to develop outreach and educational strategies to address the source of marine debris and provide technical assistance reduce the incidence of marine debris and provide technical assistance to expand waste management systems on an international basis. In case of a “severe marine debris” event, to assist in the cleanup. It is also the sense of Congress that the President should support research and development on systems that result in the reduction of derelict fishing gear and land-based sources of debris that enters the marine environment. The law addresses the membership of an Interagency Marine Debris Coordination Committee. The enormous amount of plastic waste deposited in the ocean must have been a concern to the legislators. Continue Reading ›
Today, our colleagues Ken Taber, Rebecca Carr Rizzo and Andrew Lauria published their Client Alert titled New York Employment Law Outlook 2019. Their Client Alert discusses employment laws that were introduced in 2018 in New York.
On January 14, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Commission) properly declined to undertake a rulemaking proceeding that was designed to preclude the Commission from issuing new permits unless the “best available science,” as confirmed by the findings of an independent third-party organization, determines that the drilling will occur in a manner that does not cumulatively impair the state’s atmosphere, water, wildlife, land resources and does not contribute to climate change. The case is Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, et al., v. Martinez, et al.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that it will review the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit’s February 2018 ruling in Newton v. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. which held that California’s wage and hour laws can apply to claims made by workers employees on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) platforms where federal law is preeminent—except where there is a gap in legal protection that can be filled by the laws of the adjacent state. This ruling, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari agues, was in conflict with the rulings of other federal circuit courts, especially the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Otherwise, these OCS claims are subject to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Additional Source: Ninth Circuit Remands OCSLA Wage and Hour Complaint to Central District
