My colleagues Dick Oliver and Selena Brady recently published an alert discussing the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) long-awaited Final Rule regarding “Small Business Mentor Protégé Programs” that establishes a government-wide mentor protégé program for all small businesses, including Historically Underutilized Business Zone businesses, Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small businesses, and small businesses generally. Of note, the Final Rule enables virtually all federal contractors to quickly begin participating in the small business mentor protégé program. The alert is titled SBA’s Small Business Mentor Protégé Program Expands Opportunities for Small and Large Businesses.
Today, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced, effective August 28, 2016 and continuing for 180 days, it is expanding its earlier Geographic Targeting Orders (GTO) requiring information about the natural persons behind shell companies used to purchase high-end residential real estate for “all cash.” FinCEN has been collecting this data on Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, Florida since January and believes it is “on the right track” in its anti-money laundering (AML) efforts and investigation of possible money laundering using real estate deals. It will collect this information in California for San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties; Los Angeles County; and San Diego County. It will expand to all boroughs of New York City and to Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida. Bexar county in Texas, that includes San Antonio is also included. Monetary thresholds for each area identified are provided in FinCEN’s announcement. Title insurance companies are required to comply with the GTO and provide the information.
Photo: Images by John ‘K’, Blue and Gold, Taken April 1, 2013 – Creative Commons
My colleagues Anthony Raven, Olivia Matsushita and Andrew White recently published an interesting advisory on the future of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The Future of Carbon Dioxide Injection EOR in the United States is the first advisory in a periodic series exploring legal issues relating to CO2 EOR and serves as an introduction to the EOR process. Their next advisory will focus on issues relating to the regulatory regime for CO2 transportation.
Photo: Zappys Technology Solutions, CO2, Taken September 21, 2013 – Creative Commons
In the latest installment in this long-running dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit today, in Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA, ruled, in a 2 to 1 decision, that EPA satisfied its duties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it vetoed a 404 dredge and fill permit Mingo Logan Coal Co. received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 2007 with the concurrence of EPA, only to have EPA exercise its veto power in 2011. Mingo Logan also received a 402 permit from the State of West Virginia pursuant to its delegated authority. The dispute has been the subject of two district court rulings and now two DC Circuit Court of Appeals rulings.
Pillsbury’s Policyholder Pulse Law blog recently posted an interesting blog, Use Contractor’s Pollution Liability Insurance to Clean Up Potential Gaps in Your CGL Coverage by Ashley E. Cowgill, on the importance of contractors having the right liability coverage in place in the event that a flash flood or other natural disaster causes damage that is classified by the insurer as a pollution event.
Photo: Erich Ferdinand, Deluge, Taken Nov. 29, 2012 – Creative Commons
July 15 was a busy day at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as five important decisions were issued. What was remarkable and worth noting is that Judge Judith Rogers, a member of the court since 1994, was the author of unanimous opinions in three very important administrative cases:
Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an important decision regarding the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the interactions between EPA and the states. On July 15, Fifth Circuit, in a unanimous ruling, granted a stay of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final Rule promulgated in 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 296 (Jan. 5, 2016)). The Final Rule partially approved and partially disapproved the regional haze plans developed and submitted to EPA as a state implementation plan (SIP) by Texas and Oklahoma and replaced the disapproved SIP provisions with a Federal Implementation Plan. The EPA promulgated the Final Rule nearly seven years after Texas submitted its SIP and nearly six years after Oklahoma submitted its SIP. This decision, written by Judge Elrod, is a long and complex journey through the CAA, and is quite critical of EPA handling of these issues. The case is State of Texas, et al. v. EPA.
Bi-partisan legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 5685), known as the “Farm Regulatory Certainty Act,” a bill that would amend Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (RCRA) definition of “solid waste” (42 U.S.C. § 6903 (27)) to exclude “animal waste, manure, fertilizer, or constituents derived from such sources.” A recent U.S. District Court ruling in Washington State, Community Association for the Restoration of the Environment v. Cow Palace, LLC, held that manure qualifies as a solid waste under RCRA, triggering RCRA’s imminent hazard provisions. The Cow Palace decision alarmed members of the agricultural community. The proposed legislation states that Congress never intended RCRA to govern such waste. The legislation would also amend RCRA’s Citizen Suit provisions to explicitly exclude diligent enforcement actions, whether administrative or judicial, taken by state and federal officials. It appears that alleged violations of approved State Plans approved under RCRA Section 4007 would also be excluded.
Public development and infrastructure projects are on the rise in California. This is a good thing for the economy. But it also means that private property will often be needed to complete these projects. Public agencies may acquire private property upon payment of just compensation, without the owner’s consent, through an eminent domain action. Property near highways, railroads, public utilities, government buildings and other public facilities are frequent acquisition targets for expansion of these facilities, as are those properties in the path of development of growing cities. But virtually any property may be subject to public acquisition, either through condemnation of the entire property or of easements in the property.
Recently, my colleagues Brian Blum and Jim Chudy published an interesting piece titled Five Things about the IRS’s Proposed Regulations on the Spinoff Device and Active Business Tests discussing the IRS’ recent proposal of long-anticipated regulations tightening the “device” and “active trade or business” tests that are necessary for a corporation to distribute a subsidiary in a tax-free spinoff under Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed rules are in response to widely publicized spinoffs in which tiny businesses were matched with large minority equity interests or pools of