Posted
by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in the case of Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC v. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, et al. (released August 18, 2017), rejected the Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC ’s (Constitution) petition for review after the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) denied its application for a Clean Water Act (CWA) 401 certification. NYDEC denied the application on the ground that Constitution had not complied with requests for relevant information.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced on August 22, 2017, that it is expanding its earlierHonalulu-300x169 Geographic Targeting Orders (GTO) that require U.S. title insurance companies to identify the natural persons who are behind shell companies used to buy high-end residential real estate. The GTOs now will include the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.

In addition, the GTOs will capture a broader range of transactions and include transactions that involve wire transfers. This addition comes after the recent enactment of the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in the case of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company v. U.S. Department of Transportation.  In May of 2013, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company’s (ExxonMobil) Pegasus Pipeline spilled several thousand barrels of oil near Mayflower, AK. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (Administration) cited Exxon for several violation of the pipeline integrity and safety rules (49 C.F.R. Parts 190-199), and levied a fine of $2.6 million and ordered the company to take corrective actions to ensure compliance with these rules.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the Administration’s findings were arbitrary and capricious. This is an important regulatory and administrative law decision, and it will be interesting to see how the Administration and the pipeline industry react to this ruling.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided the case of Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy. The Sierra Club challenged the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) grant of a license to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from new Texas LNG terminals and liquefaction facilities. The Court of Appeals concluded that

Sierra Club has standing but that its challenges to the Commission’s orders fail on the merits, largely for the reasons stated in the companion case, Sierra Club v. FERC (Freeport), No. 14-1275 (D.C. Cir June 28, 2016), and otherwise the court lacks jurisdiction over challenges to the Commission’s cumulative impacts analysis due to Sierra Club’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, decided the case of Friends of Lydia Ann Channel v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, vturtle-1-300x225acating the preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in March of 2017. The injunction halted the operation of a barge mooring facility that had been authorized by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to operate in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near Port Aransas and the City of Corpus Christi, TX.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided the case of Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company, et al., v. U.S. EPA. In a split decision, the Tenth Circuit vacated a final order of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which denied the plaintiff small refiners’ request for an exemption from the strictures of EPA’s Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) Program.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of BC Ranch II, LP, et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which involved charitable tax deductions based on the creation of conservation easements. After reviewing the record, the Fifth Circuit, in a split decision, disagreed with both the Commissioner and the Tax Court, placing heavy stress on the Internal Revenue Code’s public policy goals:

[T]he hope of adding untold thousands of acres of primarily rural property for various conservation purposes – acreage that would never become available for conservation if land-owning potential donors were limited to the traditional method of conveyance.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 2, 2017, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) released its first update to the General Plan Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) since 2003. The Guidelines provide guidance to cities and counties throughout California on the preparation and content of their General Plans, which govern land uses and zoning within their jurisdictions. The updated Guidelines contain new recommended policies, information resources, and  reflect recent legislation regarding General Plans.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Texas Legislature meets every two years, and, as befits a large state with varied interest and concerns, typically enacts texas-300x200hundreds of new laws during these sessions. The 85th Regular Session of the Legislature has concluded, and over 1000 laws, dealing with matters large and small were passed and signed by the Governor. Most of these new laws will take effect on September 1, 2017.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Company, which involves the ongoing liability to clean up the East Helena Superfund Site, located “in and around an industrial area in Lewis and Clark County, Montana.” The Ninth Circuit, vacating the U.S. District Court in Montana’s grant of summary judgment, held that

[Ansarco’s] 1998 RCRA Decree did not resolve Asarco’s liability for at least some of its response obligations under that agreement. It therefore did not give rise to a right to contribution under CERCLA § 113(f)(3)(B). By contrast, the 2009 CERCLA Decree did resolve Asarco’s liability, and Asarco has brought a timely action for contribution under that agreement.

Continue Reading ›