Administrative & Regulatory Archives - Page 81 of 112

School is Almost Out and Summer Interns are (Still) In

With the Memorial Day weekend approaching, many people are looking forward to hitting the beach, firing up the grill and polishing off their golf clubs, which are, for many Northeasterners, covered in cobwebs after this long winter. For employers, summer often means the arrival of (potentially unpaid) interns.

We have written before about the recent wave of high-profile wage and hour class actions lawsuits from interns. Last week, just in time for the arrival of the newest batch of summer interns, a New York federal judge conditionally certified an FLSA class of approximately 3,000 interns of Warner Music Group who were allegedly misclassified as exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements. The recent litigation has also prompted new legislation to protect interns, including a New York City law aimed at ensuring that unpaid interns will have the right to sue if they are harassed or discriminated against by an employer.

Still, many companies cannot resist the temptation of free or relatively cheap temporary labor, and, in a still-rebounding economy, job-seekers continue to look to internships to build their resumes and gain experience. So, what can a company do in order to ensure a smooth, issue-free summer with its interns?

The first and most obvious answer is to treat interns as temporary employees. Have interns track time like any other non-exempt employees. Pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for any hours worked over 40 per week (assuming they do not meet some exemption from the minimum wage and overtime laws). Comply with all state laws regarding working and meal breaks. This approach will alleviate the vast majority of legal issues with respect to employing summer interns.
Require interns to attend the same non-discrimination, non-harassment trainings as other employees. Draft job descriptions for interns and set appropriate expectations for the program. Have clear policies, including a policy regarding expected conduct at work-related social events, which interns are required to review and acknowledge in writing.
If you decide against paying interns, you should carefully review intern program to ensure that it is legally compliant with appropriate wage and hour laws. In order for an intern to be legally unpaid under federal law:

The intern experience must be similar to training given in an educational environment;
The internship must be for the benefit of the intern (meaning they gain tangible training, experience, etc.);
Interns may not displace or supplant regular employees, or perform duties traditionally rendered by regular employees;
The company must not get any immediate advantage from the intern’s activities;
The intern must not be entitled to a job at the end of the internship; and
The company and the intern should have a written agreement (or an understanding at the absolute minimum) that the intern is not entitled to receive remuneration for his/her work.

According to the Department of Labor, if any one of these criteria is not met the company must pay the intern for all time worked. Some states have their own laws regarding interns, so make sure you are in compliance with those laws as well.

If your summer intern program begins soon after Memorial Day, now is the time to review you policies. A little bit of preparation can ensure a sunny summer for all.

Article By:

Jillian M. Collins

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Getting Lawyers Up to Speed: The Basics for Understanding ITIL®

As more clients use ITIL^®—a standard for best practices in providing IT services—IT lawyers who are unfamiliar with the standard should familiarize themselves with its basic principles. This is particularly important as clients are integrating ITIL terminology and best practices (or modified versions thereof) into their service delivery and support best practices as well as the structure and substantive provisions of their IT outsourcing and services contracts.

Most IT professionals are well versed in ITIL and its framework. They will introduce the concepts into statements of work and related documents with the expectation that their lawyers and sourcing professionals understand the basics well enough to identify issues and requirements and negotiate in a meaningful way.

With this in mind, it is time for IT lawyers and sourcing professionals to get up to speed. Below are some of the basics to get started:

ITIL—which stands for the “Information Technology Infrastructure Library”—is a set of best practice publications for IT service management that are designed to provide guidance on the provision of quality IT services and the processes and functions used to support them.
ITIL was created by the UK government almost 20 years ago and is being adopted widely as the standard for best practice in the provision of IT services. The current version of ITIL is known as the ITIL 2011 edition.
The ITIL framework is designed to cover the full lifecycle of IT and is organized around five lifecycle stages:
1. Service strategy
2. Service design
3. Service transition
4. Service operation
5. Continual service improvement
Each lifecycle stage, in turn, has associated common processes. For example, processes under the “service design” stage include:
1. Design coordination
2. Service catalogue management
3. Service level management
4. Availability management
5. Capacity management
6. IT service continuity management
7. Information security management systems
8. Supplier management
The ITIL glossary defines each of the lifecycle stages and each of the covered processes.

ITIL^® is a registered trademark of AXELOS Limited.

Article By:

Barbara Murphy Melby

Of:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Phosphorus in Wisconsin: The Clean Waters, Healthy Economy Act

On April 23, 2014, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed the Clean Waters, Healthy Economy Act (Act) into law. This legislation establishes the basis for creating a multi-discharger variance for point sources struggling to meet Wisconsin’s stringent numeric phosphorus water quality criteria. Although several conditions must be met before it is available to permit holders, this legislation could have significant impacts on Wisconsin agribusinesses that hold Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits, as well as agricultural produces that may be targeted for non-point source reductions of phosphorus. In addition, since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has noted that it generally favors these multi-discharger permit approaches, Wisconsin’s approach may be replicated in other areas of the country that are considering stricter water quality standards for nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen.

What does the Act do?

Very simply, the Act sets in motion the collection of economic information to justify a multi-discharger variance based on a finding of adverse widespread social and economic impact. The Act requires the Department of Administration (DOA) to look at costs of compliance for categories of point source dischargers statewide. If the DOA finds that the “cost of compliance with water quality based effluent limitations for phosphorus by point sources that cannot achieve compliance without major facility upgrades” would cause substantial adverse social and economic impacts on a statewide basis, then the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will seek approval from the EPA for a variance under 40 CFR Part 131. The Act also defines the criteria for qualifying for the variance and what a point source must do if it opts into the variance.

How would this multi-discharger variance work for permit holders?

Agribusinesses that hold WPDES permits may be eligible for the variance. To qualify, permit holders will need to:

1) Demonstrate the economic determination made by the DOA applies to the source;

2) Certify the permittee cannot achieve compliance without a major facility upgrade (defined to mean the addition of both new treatment equipment and a new treatment process); and

3) Agree to comply with the requirements of the variance.

Once DNR has confirmed these requirements have been met, the permittee may participate in the variance for up to four permit cycles as long as it meets the discharge limits established by the multi-permit variance and takes steps to reduce phosphorus contributions from other sources.

First, the permit must comply with decreasing phosphorus discharges. These concentrations begin at 0.8 mg/L in the first permit term and then drop to 0.6 mg/L and 0.5 mg/L in the third and fourth permit term, respectively. In the fourth permit for which the variance is available, the DNR will require the permittee to achieve – by the end of the term of that permit – the water quality based effluent limit for phosphorus that would apply without the variance.

Second, while complying with these reduced discharge limits, the permittee must also undertake some activity to reduce phosphorus contributions from other sources in its watershed. This concept borrows from Wisconsin’s EPA-approved adaptive management program, and requires the permittee to:

1) Enter into a binding, written agreement with the DNR under which it implements a project or plan designed to reduce phosphorus contributions from other sources; or

2) Enter into a binding, written agreement that is approved by DNR with another person under which the other person implements a project or plan designed to phosphorus contributions from other sources; or

3) Make a payment to the counties of the watershed in which the permittee is located. These payments are calculated by multiplying $50/lb times the difference between what the permittee is currently discharging, and what the permittee would discharge if its effluent met a target limit. The target limit is either the limit set by a TMDL (total maximum daily load), if applicable, or 0.2mg/L if no TMDL is approved.

How might the Act affect producers as nonpoint sources?

Counties that receive money through this program must use at least 65% of the amounts received to fund cost-sharing for projects governed by 281.16(3)(e) or (4) (the state’s nonpoint source program). These must be applied to projects that have been prioritized by their potential to “reduce the amount of phosphorus per acre entering the waters of the state, based on an assessment of land and land use practices in the county.” Up to 35% can be used for staffing, or toward modeling or monitoring to evaluate the amount of phosphorus in waters for planning purposes. In Wisconsin, producers that are not currently meeting state performance standards may be asked to install certain practices when cost share dollars are available. The Act has the potential to increase the amount of cost share dollars available to county work in this area.

What’s Next for the Act?

Before this program is available to permittees, a number of things must happen. First, the DOA must complete an economic study that demonstrates compliance with the phosphorus standard will have adverse and widespread social and economic impact. This study must also identify the categories of dischargers that will be eligible for the multi-discharger variance. Second, EPA must approve the variance before it may be implemented in Wisconsin. Finally, permittees would need to apply for the variance to alter any existing permit conditions that have been imposed to implement the phosphorus standard. Look for further updates in 2015!

Article By:

Angela A. James

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

The North Carolina Senate Passes Energy Modernization Act

When I was a child, and daring, “frack” was my risky substitute cuss word; but not substitute enough…. Well it’s back at the General Assembly this summer as lawmakers set the stage for hydraulic fracturing “fracking” in North Carolina. Opponents claim there is not enough clarity regarding the rights of property owners under which the fracking might occur and not enough public disclosure regarding what chemicals are used in the fracking process. Proponents insist that the revenue and job creating opportunity is too good to delay further and that the state’s Mining Commission can adequately oversee the process.

SB 786 – Energy Modernization Act. Also known as An Act to

(1) Extend the Deadline for Development of a Modern Regulatory Program for the Management of Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production in the State and the Use of Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments for that Purpose;

(2) Enact of Modify Certain Exemptions from Requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act Applicable to Rules for the Management of Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production in the State and the Use of Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment for that Purpose;

(3) Create the North Carolina Oil and Gas Commission and Reconstitute the North Carolina Mining Commission;

(4) Amend Miscellaneous Statutes Governing Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production Activities;

(5) Establish a Severance Tax Applicable to Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production Activities;

(6) Amend Miscellaneous Statutes Unrelated to Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production Activities; and

(7) Direct Studies on Various Issues, as Recommended by the Joint Legislative Commission on Energy Policy.

Attempts to amend the bill with stricter water quality and property protections failed. The latest version of the bill is here: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S786v2.pdf

The Exploding Use of Drones

The potential for drones, i.e., unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”), is tremendous. After years of being associated with military operations, the civilian UAS market is expected to dramatically expand in the United States in the next ten years. A multitude of conceivable applications for UAS — including mapping, weather forecasting, law enforcement, news gathering, real estate, photography, agriculture, and freight transport — promises to change the way business is done across a diverse array of industries and companies.

By any measure, the UAS market is significant and growing. Optimistic analysts project that annual U.S. civilian spending on UAS will grow from $1.15 billion in 2015 to $4 billion in 2020 and $5.11 billion in 2025. Less sanguine analysts place the annual worldwide civilian UAS market between $498 million and $1 billion by 2020. The FAA predicts that UAS will be the “most dynamic growth sector within aviation industry.”

However, many legal and regulatory obstacles remain before drones can be widely used in our national airspace. Current federal law prohibits UAS in most circumstances with exceptions for test flights and government aircraft that secure special permission from the FAA.

This will change because Congress delegated to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the task of integrating UAS in to the National Airspace System by September 2015. Quite apart from the regulatory framework developed by the FAA, numerous legal issues will arise ranging from takings and property torts relating to flights over private property to privacy issues. State tort laws will be heavily involved.

Notwithstanding these legal and regulatory challenges to widespread UAS usage, there is great momentum and potential for this new form of aviation. Businesses should focus on how they can benefit from the use of drones. Once they have done so, they should navigate the legal and regulatory thicket. The rewards could be substantial.

Article By:

Jack L. Schenendorf

Of:

Covington & Burling LLP

Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland (7th Cir. May 14, 2014)

On May 14, 2014 the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals released its long-awaited decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland. Click here to read a copy of the court’s decision.

The opinion is authored by Judge Diane Sykes who was a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court before being nominated by President Bush and then appointed to the federal Court of Appeals in 2004. The matter had been fully briefed, argued and pending since January 2013.

In 2010, the Government Accountability Board (the G.A.B.) adopted an administrative rule, GAB 1.28. In short, this rule greatly expanded the scope of communications subject to regulation as independent expenditures. As a result, issue advocacy communications in the 30/60 days before an election that identified a candidate would be presumed to be independent expenditures and subject to full PAC regulation under state campaign finance law, including donor disclosure.

In response to the G.A.B.’s adoption of this highly controversial rule, three lawsuits were filed almost immediately after the rule took effect. One of those lawsuits was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by attorney James Bopp on behalf of Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL). However, WRTL not only sued the G.A.B. about administrative rule GAB 1.28, it also challenged a multitude of other Wisconsin campaign finance laws. Today’s decision is essentially a resolution of WRTL’s lawsuit and all of those legal challenges.

WRTL prevailed in virtually all of its arguments, including:

Wisconsin’s ban on corporate political spending is unconstitutional under Citizens United;
GAB 1.28 which treats issue advocacy during the 30/60 day preelection period as fully regulable express advocacy/independent expenditures is unconstitutional; and,
GAB 1.91 which imposes PAC-like registration and reporting requirements on all organizations that sponsor independent expenditures is unconstitutional as applied to sponsors who are not superPACs (such as 501(c)(4) organizations and other non-committee sponsors).

The Court of Appeals reached its conclusions using very strong and clear language on government’s limited ability to regulate political speech:

“The effect of [Buckley] was to place issue advocacy—political ads and other communications that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate—beyond the reach of the regulatory scheme.” (p. 20)
“As applied to political speakers other than candidates, their committees, and political parties, the statutory definition of ‘political purposes’ in section 11.01(16) and the regulatory definition of ‘political committee’ in GAB 1.28(1)(a) are limited to express advocacy and its functional equivalent as those terms were explained in Buckley and Wisconsin Right to Life II.” (p. 62)
The G.A.B.’s administrative rule “sweeps a far wider universe of political speech into [state campaign finance laws], introducing confusion for ordinary political speakers who lack the background or assistance of a campaign finance lawyer.” (p. 64)
“Regulations on speech, however, must meet a higher standard of clarity and precision. In the First Amendment context, ‘rigorous adherence to [these] requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.’ Vague or overbroad speech regulations carry an unacceptable risk that speakers will self-censor, so the First Amendment requires more vigorous judicial scrutiny.” (p. 65)

The WRTL decision also highlights the confusing nature of Wisconsin’s campaign finance statutes and the burdens these laws place on those organizations desiring to participate in the process:

Like other campaign-finance systems, Wisconsin’s is labyrinthian and difficult to decipher without a background in this area of the law; in certain critical respects, it violates the constitutional limits on the government’s power to regulate independent political speech. Part of the problem is that the state’s basic campaign-finance law—Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes—has not been updated to keep pace with the evolution in Supreme Court doctrine marking the boundaries on the government’s authority to regulate election-related speech. In addition, key administrative rules do not cohere well with the statutes, introducing a patchwork of new and different terms, definitions, and burdens on independent political speakers, the intent and cumulative effect of which is to enlarge the reach of the statutory scheme. Finally, the state elections agency has given conflicting signals about its intent to enforce some aspects of the regulatory mélange. (pp. 3-4)

The WRTL decision also is an excellent summary of the history of campaign finance regulation and litigation in Wisconsin during the last 20 years. It covers in detail successful legal challenges brought against the Elections Board / Government Accountability Board (the G.A.B) by our law firm on behalf of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (Wis. Supreme Court 1999); Wisconsin Realtors Association (W.D. Wis. 2002); and, Wisconsin Club for Growth / One Wisconsin Now (W.D. Wis. 2010). And, it discusses how despite losing in each of these instances, the G.A.B. continued to push for greater regulation—not less—of political speech.

Bottom line, the WRTL decision makes clear that the government’s authority to regulate political speech extends only to money raised and spent for speech that is express advocacy and that “ordinary political speech about issues, policy, and public officials must remain unencumbered.” (p. 9) Hopefully, with the strong language in this opinion, the G.A.B. will now understand the statutory and First Amendment limitations on its ability to regulate political speech. And, hopefully, the State Legislature will now understand that “Wisconsin’s foundational campaign finance law is in serious need of legislative attention to account for developments in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence protecting political speech.” (p. 80)

Article By:

Mike B. Wittenwyler

Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Gives Insider Trader a $30,000 Slap On The Wrist

On April 23, 2014, the SEC agreed to settle insider trading charges against Chris Choi, a former accounting manager at Nvidia Corporation who allegedly set into motion a trading scheme that reaped nearly $16.5 million in illicit profits and avoided losses. Given the amount of the purported loss, the fact that Choi was the original “tipper,” and the fact that nearly every other member of the scheme has been indicted, the Choi settlement seems like nothing more than a slap on the wrist: a $30,000 penalty without admitting to the insider trading allegations. The Choi settlement also represents a notable departure from the SEC’s recent insider trading fines and penalties against “tippers.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, on at least three occasions during 2009 and 2010, Choi tipped material nonpublic information about Nvidia’s quarterly earnings to his friend Hyung Lim. SEC v. Choi, No. 14-cv-2879 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2014). Lim passed the information along to Danny Kuo, a hedge fund manager at Whittier Trust Company, who passed the information to his boss and to a group of managers at three other hedge funds.

Kuo and the other tippee-hedge fund managers used Choi’s information to trade in advance of Nvidia earnings announcements and reaped trading gains and/or avoided losses of approximately $16.5 million.

The SEC alleged that Choi was liable for this trading because he “indirectly caused trades in Nvidia securities that were executed” by the hedge funds and “did so with the expectation of receiving a benefit and/or to confer a financial benefit on Lim.” The SEC charged him with violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act.

Choi, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, agreed to settle the matter and to the entry of an order: (1) permanently enjoining him from violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a); (2) barring him from serving as an officer or director of certain issuers of securities for five years; and (3) ordering him to pay a $30,000 penalty.

Not only is Choi’s settlement a significant departure from the resolutions obtained by his “downstream” tippees, a number of whom were convicted on criminal charges of insider trading, it is a departure from recent SEC “tipper” settlements. For example:

A former executive at a Silicon Valley technology company, who allegedly tipped convicted hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam with nonpublic information that allowed the Galleon hedge fund to make nearly $1 million profit, agreed to pay more than $1.75m to settle the SEC’s insider trading charges. See SEC Charges Silicon Valley Executive for Role in Galleon Insider Trading Scheme.
A physician who served as the chairman of the safety monitoring committee overseeing a clinical trial for an Alzheimer’s drug being jointly developed by two pharmaceutical companies, who allegedly tipped a hedge fund manager with safety data and eventually data about negative results in the trial approximately two weeks before they became public, which allowed the hedge fund to make nearly $276 million in gains, agreed to pay more than $234,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to settle the SEC’s insider trading charges. The physician’s penalty may have been mitigated by the fact that he cooperated with and received a non-prosecution agreement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in a parallel criminal action. See SEC Charges Hedge Fund Firm CR Intrinsic and Two Others in $276 Million Insider Trading Scheme Involving Alzheimer’s Drug.
A former executive director of business development at a pharmaceutical company located in New Jersey, who allegedly tipped a hedge fund manager (a friend and former business school classmate) with material nonpublic information regarding the company’s anticipated acquisition that allowed the manager to make nearly $14 million in gains, escaped criminal prosecution and agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty to settle the SEC’s insider trading charges. See SEC Charges Pharmaceutical Company Insider and Former Hedge Fund Manager for Insider Trading, Resulting in Approximately $14 Million in Profits.

There are a few reasons the SEC may have settled with Choi for such a small civil penalty. First, the SEC recently settled with Lim, the second chain in the insider trading scheme. Lim tentatively agreed to disgorgement or to pay a penalty once he has completed his cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and has been sentenced in its pending, parallel criminal action¾ i.e., United States v. Lim, 12-cr-121 (S.D.N.Y.). It also could be Choi’s limited financial means. We likely will never know the reason for the SEC’s agreed-upon resolution, but the fact of the resolution may have some value to other defendants.

Article By:

William L. Carr

Kevin A. Wisniewski

Of:

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Which Way is the Wind Blowing? U.S. Supreme Court Upholds EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision upholding EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (also known as the Transport Rule). The Transport Rule restricts air emissions from upwind states that in EPA’s judgment contribute significantly to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) in downwind states. According to EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, the Rule is expected to have significant cost implications for electric generating utilities, and much of the costs could occur in Midwestern and Southern states that were identified in the Transport Rule as contributing to nonattainment of the NAAQS for states along the East Coast.

The Transport Rule was promulgated pursuant to what is often called the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act. In the Rule, EPA established a two-step approach for restricting emissions in upwind states. First, EPA used air modeling to determine which upwind states contributed more than one percent to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 in downwind states. Second, EPA determined the level of emission reductions that could be achieved in downwind states based on cost estimates for reducing emissions. For example, EPA concluded that significant emission reductions could be obtained for a cost of $500 per ton of NOx reduced, but that at greater than $500 per ton the emission reductions were minimal. The Agency then translated those cost estimates into the amount of emissions that upwind states would be required to eliminate. Lastly, EPA developed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) detailing how states were to comply with the emission budgets assigned under the Transport Rule.

As we previously reported in August 2012, the Transport Rule had been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Aug. 21, 2012. The Court of Appeals struck down the rule primarily for two reasons. First, the court found the cost estimates that EPA used as a basis to justify emission reductions would in some cases result in requirements for upwind states to reduce their emissions more than necessary to eliminate “significant” contributions to nonattainment in downwind states. The court held that EPA could only require reductions proportionate to a specific upwind state’s contribution to a downwind state’s nonattainment status. Second, the court held that states should have been given an opportunity to develop their own implementation plans before EPA required states to follow the FIP in the Transport Rule.

In reversing the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Air Act does not require EPA to mandate only proportionate reductions in emissions from upwind states. The court argued that the “proportionality approach could scarcely be satisfied in practice” because there are multiple upwind states that each affect multiple downwind states. The Court concluded that the proportionality approach would mean that “each upwind State will be required to reduce emissions by the amount necessary to eliminate that State’s largest downwind contribution,” but that would result in cumulative emission reductions and “costly overregulation.” The court also concluded that it was appropriate for EPA to use cost as a means of allocating emissions, instead of the proportionality approach favored by the D.C. Circuit.

Regarding the FIP approach, the court held that after EPA issues a NAAQS, each state is required to propose a State Implementation Plan (SIP), including requirements to satisfy the Good Neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Court held it was appropriate for EPA to establish a FIP because the statutory deadline to propose SIPs that complied with the Good Neighbor provision had passed. The court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that it was premature to establish a FIP before EPA had made a determination regarding each upwind state’s contribution to downwind states’ nonattainment.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, authored a dissent in the case agreeing with the D.C. Circuit that costs are not contemplated as a basis for reducing emissions under the Good Neighbor provision. Further, the dissent addressed the majority opinion’s assertion that the proportionality approach would result in “costly overregulation.” The dissent stated, “over-control is no more likely to occur when the required reductions are apportioned among upwind States on the basis of amounts of pollutants contributed than when they are apportioned on the basis of cost.” The dissent went on to note, “the solution to over-control under a proportional-reduction system is not difficult to discern. In calculating good-neighbor responsibilities, EPA . . . would set upwind States’ obligations at levels that, after taking into account those reductions, suffice to produce attainment in all downwind States. Doubtless, there are multiple ways for the Agency to accomplish that task in accordance with the statute’s amounts-based, proportional focus.”

At this juncture, it is unclear whether EPA will need to promulgate additional rules to implement the Transport Rule as many of the Transport Rules’ deadlines have already expired. Additionally, it is unclear whether other legal challenges to the Transport Rule, including challenges to whether the Rule satisfies regional haze emission requirements, will delay final implementation of the Rule. Those challenges have been stayed since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the rule in 2012 but appear to be able to proceed now that the vacatur has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are also questions as to whether the Transport Rule, which was designed to help meet the 1997 ozone NAAQs of 80 ppb, will need to be reworked by EPA to meet the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQs of 75 ppb. It is also possible that estimates of emission cuts expected from the original the Transport Rule will change given the move by several power plants to convert from coal to natural gas in recent years.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is available here.

Article By:

Michael H. Elam

Hae Park-Suk

Of:

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Takes First Step Toward Possible Federal Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing

On May 9th the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) initiated a process that may result in federal regulation of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing(fracking). In the past 10 years, United States production of oil and gas has skyrocketed, due in part to the increased use of fracking technologies that use high‐pressure injection of fluids, sand, and chemicals to stimulate the release of oil and gas from geological formations which were difficult to access with other techniques. While fracking technologies have been in use for some time, environmentalists have argued that the public lacked adequate information to assess whether chemicals used in fracking posed represented threats to human health or the environment.

Last Friday, the USEPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) soliciting comment on whether companies must publicly disclose the chemicals used in the fracking process. The notice starts the public participation process and seeks comment on

The types of chemical information that could be reported under TSCA;
The regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to obtain information on chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing activities;
Whether fracking-related chemicals should be regulated through a voluntary mechanism under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

According to the USEPA, this process will help inform its efforts to facilitate transparency and public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing and will not duplicate existing reporting requirements. James Jones, the USEPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said that the “EPA looks forward to hearing from the public and stakeholders about public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing, and we will continue working with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to ensure that we complement but not duplicate existing reporting requirements.”

The notice includes a list of questions to be considered by stakeholders and the public in formulating their comments. The USEPA anticipates that the notice will publish in the Federal Register by the week of May 19, 2014. The comment period closes 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. When published, comments may be submitted through regulations.gov with reference to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019.

The Prepublication Copy Notice can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/prepub_hf_anpr_14t-0069_2014-05-09.pdf and more information from the USEPA on hydraulic fracturing can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

Article By:

Edward Casmere

J. Michael Showalter

Of:

Schiff Hardin LLP

June 2014 Visa Bulletin Released, Shows Significant Retrogression for EB-3 Worldwide, China and Mexico

Below is a summary of the U.S. State Department June 2014 Visa Bulletin:

EB-1 remains current across all filing categories;
EB-2 for Worldwide, Mexico and Philippines all remain current. The EB-2 India cut-off remains at November 15, 2004 (this has remained stagnant since the December 2013 Visa Bulletin). EB-2 China moves forward to May 22, 2009; and
EB-3 Worldwide, China and Mexico retrogress significantly (see below). EB-3 Worldwide and EB-3 Mexico move back to April 1, 2011 and EB-3 China moves back by 6 years to October 1, 2006. EB-3 Philippines moves forward by 2 months to January 1, 2008, while EB-3 India moves forward by only 2 weeks to October 15, 2003.

Dramatic Retrogression for EB-3 China

The Department of State stated in the Visa Bulletin that the “unexpected and dramatic increase in demand being received from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Offices during the past several months has resulted in number use approaching the annual limit for this category. As a result, it has been necessary to retrogress the Worldwide, China and Mexico cut-off dates for the month of June.”

Beginning with the June 2013 Visa Bulletin, the third preference employment-based immigrant visa category (EB-3) for individuals born in the People’s Republic of China (China) had a more recent cut-off date than the second preference employment-based category (EB-2). Accordingly, many foreign nationals chose to “downgrade” their case from EB-2 to EB-3 to shorten their wait time. However, this has had a negative impact on the EB-3 category and has resulted in the severe retrogression (six years) as reported above. Applicants who are still preparing their I-485 Adjustment Applications for this filing category should file before the end of the month, before the retrogression occurs on June 1, 2014.

Employment-Based Projections

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reported that on Monday April 21, 2014, Mr. Charlie Oppenheim of the Department of State’s Visa Office (VO) spoke to AILA regarding what his office is currently seeing with regard to visa demand and what might be expected in terms of Visa Bulletin movement at this time. While these “projections” can (and often do) change based on usage and/or new developments, below is a summary of the outlook based on AILA’s conversation with Mr. Oppenheim (note: Mr. Oppenheimer discussed both Family-Based and Employment-Based projections; however, we only report the employment-based projections here):

Employment Based 5th Preference China (EB-5)

China EB-5 could retrogress later this year, possibly August or September.
Retrogression for China EB-5 in the 2015 fiscal year seems almost inevitable, as there are more than 7,000 I-526 applications pending and 80% are from China.

Employment Based 1st Preference (EB-1)

It is still a little early in the fiscal year to know how many unused cases will drop down into EB-2. EB-1 usage is heavier this year than last year.

Employment Based 2nd Preference India (EB-2)

It is possible in August, but more likely in September, that India EB-2 will open at 1/1/2008 or perhaps later in 2008, in order to utilize the rest of the EB-2 visa numbers that were unused by the Worldwide categories.

How many numbers will be utilized depends on EB-1 and EB-2 usage in the Worldwide categories for the rest of the fiscal year (it could be 5,000 or more). This would be less than what was available in fiscal year 2013.

No expected changes for Worldwide EB-2.

Employment Based 3rd Preference Worldwide (EB-3)

The VO has limited knowledge as to the number of eligible applicants, and USCIS has encouraged DOS to “move the category forward” over the last five months. Demand appears to be increasing, thus, it is unlikely in the short run that the category will move forward. In fact, if current demand continues, something may have to be done as early as May 2014 to slow the demand in this category.
The last quarter of the fiscal year for 2014 does not look good, and no movement, or retrogression, is possible.

Employment Based 3rd Preference China (EB-3)

Many Chinese nationals who were waiting in the EB-2 category have been filing to “downgrade” from EB-2 to EB-3, and the result of these requests will be reflected in the coming months.
High demand is expected to continue in this category and a correction may be reflected as early as the May or June Visa Bulletin, depending on demand.

Why Are Priority Dates Important Anyway?

The issue of a visa number’s “availability” is tied to the U.S. preference system for permanent residence. The U.S. maintains limits on those who can apply to enter as permanent residents; these limits apply by type of immigrant visa sought for permanent resident as well as country of origin. From time to time, backlogs occur in certain categories of employment-based visas, for all persons or for persons from certain countries (backlogs are almost always present for family-based visas) as there are more people applying in those categories from those countries than there are visa numbers available. The setting of the preference is based upon the position’s minimum requirements, not the qualifications of the employee. The net result is that persons who have applications from those countries in the third preference are not able to move on to the final step of the permanent residence process until their “priority date” (or “place in line”) moves to the front of the line for immigrant visas. The line is set by the Department of State and is reviewed monthly. In many cases, this step can take eight years or more depending on the filing category.

The VO’s projections can give hope to some applicants, who in the coming months, may be eligible to move to the final step of the permanent residence process, after waiting for years on hold. But for others, the outlook is not very promising. While the future movement of the immigrant visa availability remains hazy, one thing is clear. Immigration Reform is needed to help eradicate these extreme and unnecessary delays for individuals who continue to contribute to the U.S. economy; and for employers, who are forced to continue filing multiple temporary work extensions in order to retain valuable employees. We will continue to watch the movement in the Visa Bulletin and provide updates.

Article By:

Patricia A. Elmas

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Category: Administrative & Regulatory

School is Almost Out and Summer Interns are (Still) In

Like this:

Getting Lawyers Up to Speed: The Basics for Understanding ITIL®

Like this: