OIL AND GAS NEWS

BP Reveals Azerbaijan Deal to Explore Caspian Sea
AFP (via Yahoo), 13 July 2009
"Energy group BP said on Monday that it had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Azerbaijan state oil company SOCAR jointly to explore the Caspian Sea."

Azerbaijan Says Interested in Nabucco Project
Forbes, 13 July 2009
"Azerbaijan is interested in the Nabucco pipeline project and the gas-rich Caspian country wants diversification of its energy export routes, Azerbaijan's industry and oil minister Natik Aliyev said on Monday."

EU, Turkey Sign Nabucco Gas Transit Agreement
Reuters, 13 July 2009
"EU countries and Turkey on Monday signed a transit deal for the Nabucco gas pipeline, aimed at cutting Europe's energy dependence on Russia, a major political step backers say will boost the project."

Azerbaijan: Gas Exports Shrivel
Eurasianet.org, 15 July 2009
"With demand pinched by the global economic crisis, international sales of Azerbaijani gas plummeted 18 percent between June and May 2009. The figure marks the latest low in a three-month downward slide for the country’s natural gas exports."

Bulgaria Agrees to Caspian Gas Link
Globe and Mail, 16 July 2009
"Bulgaria and Greece agreed on the construction of a pipeline that will allow Bulgaria to import natural gas from the Caspian Sea region, energy officials said yesterday."

KAZAKHSTAN NEWS

Kazakh Bank Alliance Sees $856 Mln Govt Injection
Reuters, 15 July 2009
"Kazakhstan's No.4 bank Alliance said on Wednesday the government would inject 129 billion tenge ($856 million) into its capital after the bank completes its $4 billion debt restructuring."

Kazakh Currency Trades Drop After Speculation Warning
Bloomberg, 16 July 2009
"Currency trading on the Kazakhstan Stock Exchange fell to $105 million today, a third of the amount yesterday, after central bank Governor Grigori Marchenko ruled out a devaluation and said bankers who fueled speculation in the tenge “must be punished.” "

Kazakh Bank BTA Names Lazard Restructuring Advisor
Reuters (via Yahoo), 14 July 2009
"Kazakhstan's largest bank BTA has hired investment bank Lazard to advise it on a $15 billion debt restructuring along with UBS, BTA said on Tuesday."

Kazakh Prosecutors Charge Bank Executives With Embezzlement
Bloomberg, 14 July 2009
"Kazakh prosecutors have charged 12 executives at BTA Bank, its Temirbank unit and some of their corporate clients with embezzling more than 83 billion tenge ($550 million) from the country’s biggest lender."

SK Telecom Mulls Bid for Kazakh Mobile Operator
Wall Street Journal, 14 July 2009
"South Korea's largest mobile carrier SK Telecom Co. Tuesday said it is considering bidding for Kazakhstan's Mobile Telecom-Service, as part of its recent efforts to seek business opportunities overseas."

Kazakh Leader Signs Law Curbing Internet: Activists
Reuters, 13 July 2009
"Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev has signed into law new controls on the Internet that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has called repressive, local activists said Monday."

Kazakhstan Starts Construction of Railway to Persian Gulf
Trend, 14 July 2009
"Astana begins the construction of part of a tripartite railway linking landlocked Central Asian states of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan with Iran and the Persian Gulf, Press TV reported."

Kazakhstan: Officials Promote Use of Kazakh
Eurasianet.org, 15 July 2009
"It appears that authorities in Kazakhstan are gearing up for new campaign to promote use of the Kazakh language."

Kazakhstan: Astana Takes the Lead in Lobbying for Nuclear-Free World
Eurasianet.org, 15 July 2009
"A major box-office hit in Kazakhstan last year was "The Gift to Stalin," a movie that introduced a new generation to a poignant page in Kazakhstan’s history as a Soviet nuclear guinea pig. The film ends with a mushroom cloud engulfing the steppe as the Soviet Union detonated its "gift to Stalin" -- its first nuclear device on August 29, 1949." 

On July 8, 2009, the Senate approved an amendment to the $42.9 billion fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2892) that would permanently reauthorize the
E-Verify program and require its use by federal contractors. E-Verify is a Web based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration which confirms a new employee's work authorization by comparing information derived from the Employer's Employment Eligibility Verification Form (the I-9 Form) against government databases.

Since the U.S. House of Representatives had voted to extend the E-Verify program for a period of two years, the two chambers will now have to work out their differences in a conference committee before any changes to the E-Verify program become law.

These actions are yet another indication of the government's emphasis on immigration compliance and send a signal to all employers that they will remain on the front lines of immigration enforcement efforts.

As an example, U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) recently announced that it had issued 652 Notices of Inspection to businesses throughout the United States of its intent to audit their I-9 records. The targeted companies were selected as a result of investigative leads coming from disgruntled employees, complaints relating to identity theft, and employer filings of government labor certification applications to legalize the status of undocumented workers.

Debate on the DHS Appropriations Bill is ongoing, and additional amendments under consideration include the following:

• E-Verify for All Employees – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered an amendment to alter the E-Verify program to allow employers to re-verify existing employees in addition to new hires.  The re-verification of current employees through the E-Verify program is strictly prohibited under current law.
• No-Match Amendment – Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) offered an amendment prohibiting the administration from using funding in the Bill to rescind the federal Social Security
  "No-Match" notices program. The amendment was introduced in response to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's announcement that the DHS was rescinding the
  "No-Match" rule. First published in August 2007, the "No-Match" rule has been the subject of a lawsuit.
• Religious Workers, Medical Students – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an amendment that would extend the special immigrant religious worker visa program and the Conrad 30 visa program for international medical students by three years.
• EB-5 Investor Immigrant Visa Extension – The Senate approved an amendment that would make the EB-5 Regional Center Program permanent.

The Bottom Line: It is clear that Congress is taking a piecemeal approach to immigration in anticipation of the pending debate on comprehensive immigration reform. All of the progams extended through the DHS Appropriations Bill are important to our immigration framework, while the E-Verify amendments demonstrate that security is still a key component of any proposed reform. It appears, therefore, that Congress will need to focus on three fronts in order to achieve an acceptable solution: strengthening border security and law enforcement to stem the flow of illegal immigration; revamping the legal channels of immigration so that non-immigrant workers can lawfully and safely enter the country to work in areas of demonstrated need; and creating a practical path to legal status for undocumented workers living in the United States. 

The economic stimulus package signed into law by President Obama, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), made major changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). More than $20 billion has been earmarked under ARRA for the transition to electronic health records. As health records become electronic over the next few years, Congress has recognized the need to drastically improve protections under HIPAA to gain the public's trust by ensuring tough privacy and security measures protecting these records. The significant changes to HIPAA include the following:

• A new security breach notification requirement has been added to HIPAA, obligating covered entities to notify affected individuals in writing of security breaches involving their protected health information. If more than 500 individuals are affected, the covered entity must also notify prominent local medical outlets and Health and Human Services (HHS) of the breach. HHS will post the names of all entities on its website that have reported a breach affecting 500 or more individuals. Further, covered entities must provide HHS with a log of all breaches that occurred during the year, regardless of the number of individuals affected. These new breach notification requirements will go into effect 30 days after HHS publishes the final HIPAA regulations (most likely in mid-August).
• Business associates will now be directly subject to HIPAA and will be subject to HIPAA's civil and criminal penalties. Business associates are entities who create, use or disclose protected health information on behalf of covered entities (such as TPAs of group health plans, collection agencies, accounting firms, auditors, law firms, billing services, transcriptionists, etc.). Prior to ARRA, business associates were only indirectly regulated by HIPAA through the business associate contract and only had contractual liability to the covered entity for privacy and/or security breaches. Under ARRA, business associates will need to implement most of HIPAA's security requirements and many of HIPAA's privacy requirements. Business associates will need to appoint a security officer, conduct a HIPAA risk analysis, develop written policies and procedures and train employees as to HIPAA's requirements. Further, business associates will now have a statutory duty to comply with all the terms of their business associate contracts. Therefore, business associates will need to implement HIPAA privacy and security compliance programs to ensure that protected health information is used and disclosed in accordance with the business associate contracts. This is a drastic change for business associates which will require a significant amount of effort to become compliant. The effective date for these changes to the business associate rules is February 17, 2010.
• HIPAA now has real teeth. Before ARRA, HHS took a soft, voluntary compliance approach to HIPAA and therefore, the dreaded HIPAA police never materialized. This approach will change under ARRA. The maximum annual civil penalty per violation is now $1.5 million (it had been $25,000 pre-ARRA). State attorneys general now are able to bring suit against a covered entity or business associate who has violated HIPAA to enjoin the wrongful practice and recover damages. HHS now has a statutory duty to investigate complaints, conduct audits and impose penalties. Penalties will be used to fund future HIPAA enforcement initiatives and repay victims of HIPAA violations. These enforcement provisions of HIPAA went into effect on February 17, 2009. Frequent, customized training of workforce members and a thorough review of your HIPAA privacy and security programs are the best courses of action to minimize the imposition of penalties.
• Many HIPAA provisions have been changed and covered entities will need to update their HIPAA privacy and security programs to implement these changes. The rules for restrictions of disclosures of protected health information, accounting of disclosures, marketing communications and the minimum necessary provisions have been changed. Security safeguards will need to be reexamined in light of guidance issued in connection with HIPAA's new breach notification requirements. Also, business associate contracts will need to be revised to incorporate the major changes to the treatment of business associates. Further guidance for implementing these changes will be contained in HHS regulations that are expected to be published in mid-August.

Once HHS issues regulations in mid-August implementing ARRA's changes to HIPAA, we will provide you with detailed guidance for the next steps you will need to take to comply with HIPAA.

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As required by United States Treasury Regulations, you should be aware that this communication is not intended or written by the drafter to be used, and it cannot be used, by any recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the recipient under United States federal tax laws.

The Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is about to implement a game-changing new structure for the registration of Internet domain names, and now is the time to let your organization's voice be heard. At its 35th Annual Public Meeting, ICANN discussed proposals for releasing new generic Top-Level Domain names ("gTLDs") and new country-code Top-Level Domain names ("ccTLDs"). If implemented, ICANN's release of new gTLDs and new ccTLDs will transform the Internet into a scene out of an old western film by creating an Internet land rush of tremendous proportions as trademark holders scramble to protect newly minted Internet space from cyberspace squatters.

Currently, there are 21 active gTLDs (e.g., .COM, .NET, and .ORG) and 249 ccTLDs (e.g., .US, .FR, .CA, and .UK) that identify Internet space just as zip codes and country codes identify real space.  Currently, organizations and individuals can purchase and register lower-level domain names (e.g., GOOGLE.COM, MICROSOFT.COM, and APPLE.COM) which, like street addresses, pinpoint a more specific cyberspace location within a given gTLD or ccTLD. Under the proposed gTLD and ccTLD expansion initiatives, however, hundreds of new gTLDs and ccTLDs would be introduced over the next two years resulting ultimately in the addition of new cyberspace continents to be distributed in a land grab of world-wide-web proportions.

New gTLDs could include brand-specific domain extensions such as .MYCOMPANYNAME, geographic-centric domain names such as .TEXAS, and even generic domain extensions such as .SOFTWARE.  New ccTLDs may include release of new Internationalized Domain Names which are Internet domain names that contain non-ASCII characters. Accordingly, upon passage of ICANN's proposal, in order to retain a saturated and well protected Internet presence, trademark owners, in particular, may be forced to place a stake in the ground on each plot of newly created Internet soil.

Consider, for example, a well-established company with high-value brand equity that owns a trademark, YOURMARK. In order to protect its trademark, as well as its brand identity across cyberspace, the company has registered YOURMARK as a domain name across multiple gTLDs (e.g., YOURMARK.COM, YOURMARK.NET, YOURMARK.ORG, and YOURMARK.BIZ) and multiple ccTLDs (e.g., YOURMARK.COM.MX, YOURMARK.CO.UK, and YOURMARK.ES). In order to merely maintain its brand equity and protect the value of its trademark under ICANN's new cyberspace architecture, the company, for example, may be forced to register its domain name under numerous new gTLDs (e.g., YOURMARK.YOURMARK, YOURMARK.TEXAS, and YOURMARK.SANFRANCISCO) and under any new Internationalized Domain Names that are released.

Although brand owners have expressed concern over the impact of ICANN's gTLD and ccTLD expansion, ICANN has showed no signs of reversing its soon to be implemented expansion of cyberspace. Even though a final version of the implementation plan must still be approved by the ICANN Board, the new gTLD and ccTLD architecture was approved by ICANN for implementation on June 26, 2008, and implementation of the plan is expected later this year. Accordingly, in March 2009, as a result of advocacy efforts of the Intellectual Property Constituency within ICANN, the ICANN Board authorized the Intellectual Property Constituency to form an Implementation Resolution Team ("IRT") to "develop and propose solutions to the overarching issues of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs."

The IRT's final report (a copy of which can be accessed by clicking here), observes that
"[d]omain abuse . . . is a business with low overheads, no barriers to entry and few risks" and that the "sale and broad expansion of new TLDs in the open market, if not properly managed, will provide abundant opportunities for cybersquatters to seize old ground in new domains."  Consequently, the IRT's final report proposes several Rights Protection Mechanisms including, for example, the establishment of an IP Clearing House to provide centralized data support and storage for new gTLD registries, and the creation of a Globally Protected Marks List ("GPML"). The GPML would serve as a "white list" for trademarks owned by individuals or organizations meeting certain domain name ownership and market saturation criteria. If implemented, ICANN would prohibit registration of domain names identical to names on the GPML. The report also proposes establishing a Thick WHOIS (i.e., a comprehensive identification summary) for each domain name within a new gTLD in order to prevent cybersquatters from concealing their registration information.

Because ICANN seems unlikely to reverse its course of implementing new gTLDs and ccTLDs, it is critical for trademark owners to carefully study and voice concern regarding the proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms. In order to inform ICANN as to the position of your organization regarding the proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms, you can do either of the following:

1. Attend an upcoming Regional Consultation Meeting being hosted by ICANN in New York City on July 13 or London on July 15. Pre-registration for each of these events is required and must be received by July 10, 2009. Click here to learn more about these meetings or to pre-register to attend.
2. Join an industry consortium group within your organization's field that can lobby ICANN on behalf of its members to set policies and standards beneficial to your organization's industry sector. Such industry consortium groups may, for example, conduct member surveys regarding ICANN's proposed policies and convey the results of such member surveys to ICANN.

For those not interested in pursuing either of these avenues for objections or comments to the proposed gTLD and ccTLD expansion initiatives, we suggest monitoring these developments closely so that your organization will be in a position to further stake out and protect its domain name and trademark rights in the new cyberspace continents that will be created if ICANN implements its proposed game-changing Internet architecture. We currently expect ICANN to begin introducing new gTLDs and ccTLDs into the marketplace in 2010.

The last two years have seen significant evolution of energy commodity trading agreements. Below is a summary of some key developments of additional provisions promulgated under the EEI Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement ("EEI") and the ISDA Master Agreement ("ISDA"). Many of these new provisions have arisen as responses to legislative changes (such as the bankruptcy code revisions of 2005), extreme market conditions (such as the new EEI market disruption definitions), judicial and regulatory developments (such as the revised Mobile-Sierra provisions), or market structure evolution (such as the new product definitions to reflect the pending implementation of the nodal market structure in ERCOT).

Highlights of New EEI Contractual Provisions:

In its much-awaited ruling in the Ricci v. DeStefano “reverse discrimination” case, an extremely divided Supreme Court has held that the City of New Haven, Connecticut violated the civil rights of white and Hispanic firefighters when it discarded the results of promotion tests because African-Americans scored disproportionately lower on those exams. Reversing the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the 5-4 majority rejected the City’s argument that it would have been sued by the African-American candidates if it had implemented the tests’ lopsided results.

The majority’s ruling is a cautionary one for employers with affirmative action programs, informal diversity initiatives, and related hiring and promotion policies.

The Ricci Employer: Caught Between the Proverbial Rock and a Hard Place

The Ricci case has fueled controversy because it underscores the no-win situation employers may find themselves in when they seek to achieve workplace diversity. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, good-faith attempts to avoid discrimination against one group can make employers vulnerable to bias charges from another group. This dilemma results from Title VII’s ban on both:

• “Disparate treatment” discrimination, which is intentional discrimination on account of race, gender, etc.; and
• “Disparate impact” discrimination, defined as unintentional discrimination resulting from a practice or policy which appears neutral on its face (such as a college degree requirement), but which (1) has a disproportionately adverse affect on a protected group (e.g., minorities); (2) is neither job-related nor justified by business necessity (e.g., receptionist position); and (3) can be replaced with an alternative policy that will have a less discriminatory impact (e.g., high school diploma).

The facts of the Ricci case graphically illustrate how trying to avoid a “disparate impact” lawsuit can make an employer liable for “disparate treatment.”

The case arose after the City’s written tests for fire department promotions produced no qualified African-American candidates. Some members of the Civil Service Board were concerned that the exams may have been inherently biased, although the Board never authorized a post-test evaluation for possible bias. Ultimately, the Board was deadlocked, the tests were discarded, and none of the candidates were promoted.

High Scorers File “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuit

Frank Ricci, along with 16 other high-scoring white candidates and one Hispanic, sued New Haven’s officials, alleging that the City’s failure to certify the test results and grant promotions constituted, among other things, unlawful “disparate treatment” discrimination. In response, the City argued that, because of the racially disproportionate results, it risked a “disparate impact” lawsuit by the lower-scoring African-American test takers if the exams were used to award promotions.

The Lower Courts’ Rulings

The trial court granted the City’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. A three-member panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which included Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, summarily affirmed, reasoning that the City, in refusing to validate the exams, was “simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact." Subsequently, the Second Circuit, in a 7-6 decision, refused to rehear the case en banc.

The Majority: “Fear of Litigation Alone” Does Not Justify Reliance on Race

Writing for the majority, and following in the tradition of “swing” voters Sandra Day O’Connor on the Rehnquist Court and Potter Stewart on the Burger Court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy continued his role, particularly evident in employment law cases, as the pivotal vote on the Roberts’ Court. Justice Kennedy found that the City of New Haven rejected the test results “solely because” the higher scoring candidates were white. As a result, the City’s actions constituted unlawful disparate treatment “absent some valid defense.” 

A “Valid Defense” to Disparate Treatment

The majority held that an employer may not take "race-conscious, discriminatory action" against one group of employees, unless there is "a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to" liability to another group. In the majority’s view, the City’s fear of a disparate impact lawsuit, even though based on a statistical disparity that likely could establish a prima facie (i.e., threshold) case of disparate impact discrimination, was insufficient to satisfy the “strong basis in evidence” test.

The majority concluded that the disputed tests were objective, job-related and consistent with business necessity, and that there was no less discriminatory alternative that served the City’s needs. Thus, the Court decided that the City likely would have prevailed in a disparate impact lawsuit, and, therefore, did not have a “valid defense” to the claim of disparate treatment discrimination.

Justice Kennedy was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer joined in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. 

Bottom Line

The Court’s ruling is somewhat confusing. If there is “a strong basis in evidence” that a disputed practice produces an unlawful disparate impact on one group then disparate treatment against another group, resulting from efforts to remedy the disparate impact, is not unlawful. But, what exactly constitutes “a strong basis in evidence”? The Court does not offer a bright line test. Here, the City of New Haven’s fear of being sued because of lopsided test results was insufficient. Nonetheless, one thing seems clear: the City would have been in a much stronger position had it authorized an expert to analyze the tests after it discovered the statistically disproportionate results. Accordingly, employers should take the following pre- and post- test steps:

• Pre-test administration steps: Have an expert conduct an objective, thorough evaluation of all hiring and promotion tests and related policies for inherent bias. If bias is found or strongly suspected, the safest course is to revise the test or other practice before it is used.
• Post-test steps: Before the results are implemented, conduct a statistical analysis according to protected groups, e.g., race, gender, ethnicity. If there is a significant statistical disparity, have an expert evaluate the test or policy for inherent bias. If bias is uncovered or strongly suspected, the employer should then consider:
  
  
• Is the test or policy job-related and consistent with business necessity?
• Is there an alternative to this test or policy that would produce a less disparate effect while still meeting the company’s business needs?

Employers may want to involve counsel in this process so that they can best evaluate their options for avoiding a lawsuit based either on disparate impact or disparate treatment.

Beyond Ricci

Ricci was the Court’s final employment law decision of the 2008-2009 term, but it is not destined to fade from the public arena anytime soon. In the coming months and years, lower federal courts likely will be tasked with interpreting and applying the ruling. More immediately, the Ricci decision is expected to be front and center during Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings this summer.

Note: Coinciding with Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, we will provide a Client Alert in mid-July, which reviews all of this term’s labor and employment law decisions. 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - NOTICES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

NetDMR: Online Reporting of Discharge Monitoring Data
TCEQ Web Site
"NetDMR is a Web-based tool that allows you as a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permittee to electronically sign and submit your water quality discharge-monitoring reports (DMRs) to the TCEQ."

TCEQ Increases High and Significant-Hazard Dam Inspections
TCEQ Web site, June 22, 2009
"The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality today announced that due to increased funding from the state legislature and recent rules modifications, considerable progress is being made towards inspecting all of the state's 1,735 high and significant-hazard dams."


TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - AGENDAS AND WORK SESSIONS

Commissioners' July 8, 2009 Meeting Agenda
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
TCEQ Web Site

Commissioners' June 26, 2009 Agenda Meeting Webcast
(Real Player Required)
TexasAdmin.com

Back to top

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - NEWS REPORTS

Air
 

High Ozone Levels Could Slow Austin Economic Growth
The Daily Texan, June 24, 2009
"Austin’s air quality could soon become a roadblock for the city’s economic growth."

Study: Plant Not Ozone Threat
Corpus Christi Caller-Times, June 24, 2009
"CORPUS CHRISTI - The proposed Las Brisas Energy Center would not affect ozone levels near regulatory air monitors, according to a study by University of Texas researchers."

Air Monitor Almost Ready
Corsicana Daily Sun, June 20, 2009

"Navarro County’s new air monitor should be ready up and working by the end of the month - or sooner, according to a spokeswoman with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality."

Back to top

Enforcement

BP Agrees to Review Pollution
Houston Chronicle, June 29, 2009
"AUSTIN - BP Products North America Inc. agreed Monday to a court order forcing the petrochemical giant to end what state officials said are illegal pollution emissions at its Texas City refinery."

Enforcement Funds Pay Off, Research Finds
Houston Chronicle, June 27, 2009
"Researchers followed the money to better understand the effectiveness of states’ efforts to clean the air."

State Issues $650,000 Fine Against BP
Galveston County Daily News, June 27, 2009
"TEXAS CITY — The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on Friday fined BP’s Texas City operations $650,000 for what the state said was improper disposal of waste product."

TCEQ Approves Fines Totaling $1,800,370
TCEQ Web Site, June 26, 2009
"The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality today approved penalties totaling $1,800,370 against 123 regulated entities for violations of state environmental regulations."

Back to top

Regulatory Developments
 

What's New in TCEQ Rules
TCEQ Web Site, June 19, 2009

Back to top

Waste

Asarco Cleanup: Impartial Trustee a Must
El Paso Times, June 29, 2009
"Already there seems to be a mess amid the Asarco cleanup mess."

Critics: Burial Site for Hudson PCBs Is Inadequate
Houston Chronicle, June 21, 2009
"LUBBOCK, Texas - Later this month, the first trainloads of PCB-tainted sludge dredged from the Hudson River will arrive and, in the eyes of critics, will turn a stretch of West Texas into New York's 'pay toilet.'"

Back to top

Water

TCEQ Searches for New Water Source for County Road Residents
MyWestTexas.com, June 30, 2009
"Though citizens who live near West County Road 112 and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality officials haven’t agreed on every procedure being used to investigate hexavalent chromium found in the area, they concurred at a meeting Tuesday on one key point: Residents need a new water source."

New Power-Plant Drain on Rivers Sparks Debate
San Antonio Express-News, June 21, 2009
"New power plants planned along the lower Colorado River could use the same water supply that was denied San Antonio for future growth."

TCEQ Monitoring Rapidly Declining Water Flows
TCEQ Web Site, June 18, 2009
"The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is monitoring an extensive and prolonged drought in the South Texas area."

Back to top

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Chemical Release Reporting
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 30259, June 25, 2009

Back to top

EPA REGION 6

Candidate for Regional EPA Post Faces Opposition
Dallas Morning News, June 30, 2009
"A former Texas official turned industry lobbyist faces opposition in his bid to become President Barack Obama's top environmental appointee in Texas and four adjacent states."

Back to top

EPA

EPA Grants California GHG Waiver
EPA Web Site, June 30, 2009
"WASHINGTON – EPA is granting California’s waiver request enabling the state to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for new motor vehicles, beginning with the current model year."

EPA Gives California Emissions Waiver
Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2009
"Reporting from Washington -- The Environmental Protection Agency will announce today that it is granting California's request to impose tough restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks -- reversing the Bush administration's position and opening the way for the state to take the lead on global-warming policy."

Proposed Settlement Agreement (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers v. EPA)
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 31273, June 30, 2009

EPA Proposes Stronger Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide
EPA Web Site, June 29, 2009
"WASHINGTON – For the first time in more than 35 years, EPA has proposed to strengthen the nation’s nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air quality standard that protects public health."

Final Rule: Reorganization and Name Change for the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) Within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 30228, June 25, 2009

EPA Releases Third National Assessment of Toxic Air Pollutants
EPA Web Site, June 24, 2009
"WASHINGTON – EPA has released the latest version of a state-of-the-science tool that estimates health risks from breathing air toxics in the United States."

EPA Echoes Activists in Challenging Texas' Air Pollution Permits, Practices, Commission
Dallas Morning News, June 24, 2009
"Groups attacking Texas' environmental policies have gained an important ally: the Obama administration."

Final Rule: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Renewable Fuel Standard Program Requirements
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 29948, June 24, 2009

Final Rule: Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 29136, June 19, 2009

Draft Risk and Exposure Assessment Report for Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 28698, June 17, 2009

Proposed Rule: Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 28451, June 16, 2009

Back to top

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

Proposed Rule: Safety and Environmental Management Systems for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Operations
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
74 Federal Register 28639, June 17, 2009

Back to top

TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION

Austin Oil Co. Given Green Light to Sue Texas Railroad Commission
Austin Business Journal, June 23, 2009
"Gov. Rick Perry has signed a bill that paves the way for Austin-based Gulf Energy Exploration Corp. to sue the Texas Railroad Commission over the plugging of one of its offshore gas wells."

Owner of Disposal Well Near Aledo Won't Face Hearing for Leak
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 22, 2009
"The owner of a saltwater disposal well near Aledo that leaked last fall won’t face a penalty hearing, according to a Texas Railroad Commission ruling."

Back to top

OTHER TEXAS ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS

Austin's Green Groups Roll Out Agenda
Austin American-Statesman, June 29, 2009
"Fresh off an election in which their preferred candidates swept the City Council races, Austin's environmental-activist groups are calling for a far-reaching 'green' agenda to be adopted at City Hall."

Winners and Losers Emerge in Climate Bill
Houston Chronicle, June 27, 2009
"NEW YORK - In addition to raising energy ]]> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:00:00 -0500 http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/news.advisory/item/6f4cfffd-88e4-493f-b413-844d8c292fa9/from_rss.cfm http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bracewellgiuliani/legaladvisories/~3/DDTJr8trn7E/from_rss.cfm U.S. Supreme Court Finds Student "Strip Search" Unconstitutional Unless Specifically Justified

The United States Supreme Court decided an important school district case related to student searches on June 25, 2009. This case, styled Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding, involved a 13-year-old public school student who was suspected of possessing and distributing prescription-strength and over-the-counter pain relief pills, which were banned under school rules without advance permission. The student was required to remove her outer clothing and then "pull out" and shake her bra and the elastic band on her underwear in the presence of a female administrator and a female school nurse. The search exposed the student's breasts and pelvic area to some degree. No pills were found in her belongings or on her person. The Supreme Court held that although a search of a student's belongings and outer clothing is justified when the student is reasonably suspected of giving out contraband pills, a search that goes down to exposing the body of a student requires some specific justification in suspected facts indicating a moderate chance that the search will result in the discovery of contraband. The severity of the suspected infraction is also a relevant factor. The Court found that the school officials' belief in the general possibility that students hide contraband in or under their clothing was insufficient to justify the search. Because the school officials lacked a specific reason to suspect that the student was concealing pills in her underwear, and because the nature of the drugs and the small quantity that had been distributed constituted a relatively limited threat, the Court held that the "strip search" was unconstitutional.