Brunini Law

We've been around as long as the file cabinet.

(And we’re organized to fit your needs.)

Newsletters

BRUNINI WELCOMES MAGGIE K. DUFF

by

Maggie Duff has joined Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes in August of 2020 as an associate in the firm’s civil litigation department. Her practice focuses primarily in commercial litigation, personal injury and mass tort liability and labor and employment.

Maggie received her Juris Doctor from the University of Mississippi School of Law in 2020. Prior to attending law school, she received her Bachelor of Arts in Communications with an emphasis in Public Relation at Mississippi State University in 2016.

In law school, Maggie served as a Senior Articles Editor of the Mississippi Sports Law Review. Maggie was also a member of the Business Law Network and Student Bar Association. Maggie has volunteered for federal and local campaigns and also served in U.S. Congressman Steven Palazzo’s office in Washington, D.C. Maggie was a member of the Stennis Program for Congressional Interns nominated by Congressman’s Palazzo’s office. Additionally, during her time in law school, Maggie was a legal intern for the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office.

Sam Kelly, Managing Partner of the Brunini firm said, “We are excited to welcome Maggie to the Firm and are confident that she will be a wonderful asset to our team.”

Related Attorneys

A CIRCUIT SPLIT ON TITLE V PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

by

A split has formed between the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits over requirements applicable to obtaining Title V permits pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (“the Act”). See Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, —F.3d—, 2020 WL 4686995 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2020); Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020).

The foundation for the disputes in both cases was the propriety of the past issuance of preconstruction permits, i.e., New Source Review (“NSR”) permits, which are issued pursuant to Title 1 of the Act. NSR permits must be obtained before building a new facility or modifying an old one, and they are issued by states through vehicles called “state implementation plans” (“SIPs”). A state must provide notice and an opportunity to comment before a preconstruction permit is granted. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.161(a).

The requirements of a NSR permit differ substantially depending upon whether the new source is deemed a “major source” or “minor source.” If “major,” then the review for a NSR permit and the requirements that must be met are detailed and difficult. If “minor,” then the bar is considerably lower. As a result, this designation is important to interested parties.

This is where Title V becomes important. Title V permits were added to the Act in 1990, well after the introduction of NSR permits in 1977. The purpose of Title V permits is to provide each source with a single permit that contains and consolidates all information needed to comply with the Act without imposing new substantive requirements, and they must be renewed every five years.

The permit must contain:

“enforceable emission limitations and standards, a schedule of compliance, a requirement that the permittee submit to the permitting authority, no less often than every 6 months, the results of any required monitoring, and such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of this chapter, including the requirements of the applicable implementation plan.”

§ 7661c(a) (emphasis added).

The split concerns the meaning of “applicable requirements” when a Title V permit or renewal is sought after, sometimes even years after, having obtained a Title 1 permit. How are the Title 1 requirements incorporated into the Title V permit?

One interpretation is that “applicable requirements” means a Title V permit must incorporate all of the requirements in the previously granted Title 1 permit, but nothing more. Another is that it must include all of the requirements of the SIP, and not simply the requirements contained in the permit, and this means it includes the requirements for major NSR. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2)(c), 7471, 7502(c)(5).

The difference in this interpretation is enormous. Under the former, a court only determines whether the Title V permit incorporates the requirements contained in the Title I permit as issued. Under the latter, a court can second-guess the issuance of the type of preconstruction permit, i.e., major or minor, at a later point in time.

The difficulty faced by the Fifth and Tenth Circuits is that § 7661c(a) does not define “applicable requirements.” The Tenth Circuit resolved this issue by looking to the definition of this term in 40 C.F.R. § 70.2, the regulation that implements § 7661c(a). Section 70.2 provides, in relevant part:

“Applicable requirement means all of the following as they apply to emissions units in a part 70 source…

(1) Any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under title I of the Act that implements the relevant requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan promulgated in part 52 of this chapter”

The Tenth Circuit reasoned “the applicable implementation plan” includes SIPs, and SIPs require major NSR.

The Fifth Circuit, by contrast, discussed (among other factors) the lack of a definition provided in the statute, legal authority indicating Title V does not impose new substantive requirements, and the EPA’s view before enacting § 70.2 that “the intent of [T]itle V is not to second-guess the results of any State’s NSR program.” Environmental Integrity Project, 2020 WL 4686995 at *3. It recognized that preconstruction permits are already subject to a notice and comment period and approval by the EPA, and adopting the petitioner’s view (the view adopted by the Tenth Circuit) could “make Title V a vehicle for the public to (again) challenge preconstruction permits” because it makes possible re-examining the substantive validity of underlying Title I preconstruction permits. Id. at 10. To private and other interested parties, this injects uncertainty in the permitting process because there is, resultantly, no finality to a permitting decision. A preconstruction permit issued in Year 1 could be re-litigated in Year 15 upon renewal of a Title V permit.

The Fifth Circuit decision is binding in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, while the Tenth Circuit’s is binding in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. It is possible the split will not be resolved until the United States Supreme Court addresses the issue. However, because the Fifth Circuit rested its decision on the EPA’s interpretation of a statute, i.e., § 7661c(a), and the Tenth Circuit rested its decision on the EPA’s interpretation of a regulation, i.e., § 70.2, it is also possible the Fifth Circuit could revisit the issue and reframe its approach if future arguments raised before the court focus more closely on the EPA’s interpretation of § 70.2. Foundation for this suggestion can be seen in footnote 6 of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion.

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board

by

Summary of Meeting Held May 12, 2020

The Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board (“Board”) convened at 9:00 a.m. on May 12, 2020.  This meeting was held through a telephone and Zoom conference call and the public was invited to listen to the deliberations of the Board.  The Board first approved minutes from the previous meeting held on April 14, 2020 and the non-controversial actions/ certifications completed by the staff since the March meeting. Then, following a prepared agenda, the Board considered items as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

Ron Porter (MDEQ Office of Geology, Mining and Reclamation) presented the MDEQ Staff’s recommendations and Board approved the following:

Surface Mining Application

Permittee County Permit
Baker Ready Mix & Construction, LLC Winston A2038

James Matheney (MDEQ Office of Geology, Mining and Reclamation) presented the MDEQ staff’s recommendations and Board approved the following:

Surface Mining Bond Releases

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
J. J FERGUNSON SAND & GRAVEL CARROLL P98-027 No Release
JOE MCGEE CONSTRUCTION CO RANKIN P14-021 Final 10%
JOE MCGEE CONSTRUCTION CO RANKIN P15-001 Final 10%
MAGCO, INC JASPER P13-007 No Release
ODDEE SMITH CONSTRIUCTION, INC LINCOLN P02-066AAA Initial 35%
W.S. JORDAN & SONS SAND & GRAVEL, INC DESOTO P87-005 Initial 90%
W.S. JORDAN & SONS SAND & GRAVEL, INC DESOTO P92-001 Final 60%
W.S. JORDAN & SONS SAND & GRAVEL, INC DESOTO P96-026 Final 20%
W.S. JORDAN & SONS SAND & GRAVEL, INC DESOTO P99-045 Initial 90%
ALL SOUTH CONSTRUCTION NESHOBA P99-071A Final 80%

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

WASTE DIVISION – SOLID WASTE PERMITTING BRANCH

 Quad County Environmental Solutions, LLC (Quad County Landfill), Marshall County, Modification of Solid Waste Mgmt. Permit SW0470010580

 MDEQ staff presented to the Board and recommended approval the above-referenced Application.  Staff described the Quad County Landfill projects and discussed the dates of various public notices and hearings, reporting that the no public comments were received at the hearing.  After answering some brief questions from the Board, MDEQ staff recommended issuance of the Permit and the Board approved.

Other Business

Roy Furrh, MDEQ Legal Counsel, informed the Board members that the evidentiary hearing regarding Mississippi State Port Authority – North Port Property in Harrison County, scheduled for May 12, 2020, has been postponed and will be rescheduled.

Mr. Furrh also reminded the Permit Board officer elections will be held during the June meeting.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on June 9, 2020, at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Practice Group of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter, or if you would like further information about the matters addressed in a newsletter, please contact John Milner, the Brunini Firm Environmental Practice Group leader, at jmilner@brunini.com or (601) 960-6842.

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality

by

Summary of Meeting Held April 23, 2020

The Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality (“MCEQ”) convened at 9:00 a.m. on April 23, 2020.  This meeting was held through a telephone conference call.  The public was invited to listen to the deliberations of the Commission on the conference phone line.  The Commission first approved minutes from the previous meeting held on February 27. 2020. Then, following a prepared agenda, the Commission considered items as follows:

FY 2021 Underground Storage Tank Fee Recommendation

A public comment period concerning the FY2021 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Fee was held between February 12 through March 12, 2020 with the public notice information distributed to the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association. No comments were received. Staff recommended and the Commission approved to set the fee at the proposed rate of $150.00 per UST, which is an increase of $50 from last year’s tank fee. The tank fee has been set at $100 per UST since 1998.

Environmental Covenant for Southland Oil Yazoo Bulk Plant

Pursuant to the Commission’s delegation regulations (11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 1, R.1.1.Y.), the Interim Executive Director of MDEQ approved the Environmental Covenants between the Commission and Comet Street, LLC regarding the remediation of a former bulk plant located at 1184 Rialto Road in Yazoo City, Mississippi. The site operated as a bulk storage plant for diesel fuel and gasoline. Site assessments have revealed release(s) of diesel fuel and gasoline contaminating soils and groundwater at concentrations in excess of Target Remediation Goals. Remedial actions included the installation of a dual phase extraction system in 2006 and soil excavation in 2013. The staff of the MDEQ has evaluated the proposed Environmental Covenant and believes that, with the conditions and restrictions contained within; the site will be in compliance with applicable State laws and standards and will be protective of the public health and the environment. This agenda item is for reporting purposes only.

The next Commission meeting will be held on May 28, 2020, at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Practice Group of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter, or if you would like further information about the matters addressed in a newsletter, please contact John Milner, the Brunini Firm Environmental Practice Group leader, at jmilner@brunini.com or (601) 960-6842

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board

by

Summary of Meeting Held April 14, 2020

The Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board (“Board”) convened at 9:00 a.m. on April 14, 2020.  This meeting was held through a telephone conference call.  The public was invited to listen to the deliberations of the Board on the conference phone line.  The Board first approved minutes from the previous meeting held on March 10, 2020 and the non-controversial actions/ certifications completed by the staff since the March meeting. Then, following a prepared agenda, the Board considered items as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

James Matheney (MDEQ Office of Geology, Mining and Reclamation) presented the MDEQ Staff’s recommendations and Board approved the following:

Surface Mining Bond Releases

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Eutaw Construction Company Panola P16-016 Additional 15%
Eutaw Construction Company Oktibbeha P16-004 Final 50%
James Construction Group Hinds P14-005A No Release
Joe McGee Construction Co. Tallahatchie P16-029A Initial 70%
Wet Mine Assets Holding, LLC Hancock P04-008AT Initial 50%

Other Business

Roy Furrh, MDEQ Legal Counsel, informed the Board Members that the evidentiary hearing regarding Mississippi State Port Authority – North Port Property in Harrison County, scheduled for May 12, 2020, has been postponed and will be rescheduled. Steve Ray will be the hearing officer.

Mr. Furrh also reminded the Permit Board members that they need to complete their annual compliance forms and statement of economic interest forms and turn in their Designee Letters.

Mr. Furrh also discussed the upcoming May 12, 2020 Board meeting and stated that there are agenda items for which they expect persons to oppose Permit Board approval for these items.  Mr. Furrh stated that holding the meeting via Zoom or WebEx is being considered in order to allow all interested persons to address the Board in an easier manner. MDEQ will announce the meeting format at a later date.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on May 12, 2020, at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Practice Group of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter, or if you would like further information about the matters addressed in a newsletter, please contact John Milner, the Brunini Firm Environmental Practice Group leader, at jmilner@brunini.com or (601) 960-6842.

Related Attorneys

U.S. Department of Labor Provides Additional Guidance on Employers’ OSHA Recordkeeping Responsibilities During COVID-19

by

During the COVID-19 pandemic, employers have been forced to address the application of virtually every legal labor and employment obligation in the context of the pandemic.  One of these obligations includes an employer’s responsibilities under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  The DOL previously published its Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19, in which it outlined steps for employers to protect their employees.

On April 10, 2020, the DOL issued additional guidance addressing the agency’s enforcement of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements amid the COVID-19 pandemic.  Generally, OSHA recordkeeping requirements command “covered employers” to record certain work-related injuries and illnesses on their OSHA 300 log. However, since the on-set of this pandemic, employers have wrestled with whether they are required to record an employee’s COVID-19 illness—and if so, when.

According to the DOL, COVID-19 is “recordable” and must be included on an employer’s OSHA 300 log, if:

  • The case is a confirmed case of COVID-19, as defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC);
  • The case is “work-related,” (as defined by 29 CFR § 1904.5); and
  • The case involves one or more of the general recording criteria, (as outlined by OSHA and set forth in 29 CFR §1904.7). Per OSHA, cases meet this recording criteria if it results in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond “first aid,” or loss of consciousness.

In the same guidance, the DOL expressly stated that it will not require covered employers to make a determination regarding “work-relatedness” (Step # 2 above), except where:

  • There is objective evidence that a COVID-19 case may be work-related; and
  • The evidence was reasonably available to the employers.

The DOL expressly states that this limited recordkeeping waiver does not apply to employers in the healthcare industry, emergency response organizations (e.g., emergency medical, firefighting and law enforcement services), and correctional institutions.

The DOL’s stated goal of this limited enforcement is to “help employers focus their response efforts on implementing good hygiene practices in their workplaces, and otherwise mitigating COVID-19’s effects, rather than on making difficult work-relatedness decisions in circumstances where there is community transmission.”

Related Attorneys

New Guidance for Employers on Obtaining COVID-19/Paid Sick Leave Tax Credits

by

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has finally provided employers covered by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)—those employers with less than 500 employees—with guidance concerning the documentation needed in order to seek the refundable payroll tax credits provided for under the FFCRA.  In so doing, the IRS has essentially established the documentation employees should be prepared to provide to employers in order to obtain the new COVID-19 related paid sick leave rights.

As previously reported, President Trump officially signed the FFCRA into law on March 18, 2020.  Among its provisions, the FFCRA set out several key mandates that impact employers, including:

  • New, separate paid sick leave rights for employees impacted by COVID-19 and those serving as caregivers for individuals with COVID-19; and
  • New, enhanced leave entitlements under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), including paid leave under FMLA.

Since its passage, employers covered by the FFCRA have worked to understand and implement the FFCRA, including how to obtain the refundable tax credits provided by Congress as a way to offset the costs of these new mandates.

Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provided its own initial guidance to assist covered employers with the mechanics of complying with the FFCRA.  Of particular importance to employers, the IRS provided some guidance regarding what information covered employers should receive from an employee in order to “substantiate” eligibility for the FFCRA tax credits.  You should maintain all records noted below for at least four (4) years after the payroll tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later.

General Required Documentation

According to the IRS guidance, a covered employer will “substantiate eligibility” for the FFCRA’s paid sick leave and/or paid family leave credits if the employer receives a written request for such leave from the employee in which the employee provides:

  • The employee’s name;
  • The date or dates for which leave is requested;
  • A statement of the COVID-19 related reason the employee is requesting leave and written support for such reason; and
  • A statement that the employee is unable to work, including by means of telework, for such reason.

In addition, the IRS directs covered employers to “create and maintain records” that include the following information:

  1. Documentation to show how you determine the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages you paid to each employee, including records of work, telework, and qualified family leave;
  2. Documentation to show how you determine the amount of qualified health plan expenses that the employer allocated to wages;
  3. Copies of any completed Forms 7200, Advance of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19, that you submit to the IRS;  and
  4. Copies of the completed Forms 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, that you submit to the IRS.

Reason-Specific Documentation

In addition to the general requirements outlined above, several of the specific COVID-19 related reasons for leave require their own additional details.  For example, in the case of a leave request based on “a quarantine order or self-quarantine advice,” the statement from the employee should include the name of the governmental entity ordering quarantine or the name of the health care professional advising self-quarantine, and, if the person subject to quarantine or advised to self-quarantine is not the employee, that person’s name and relation to the employee.

Similarly, in the case of a leave request based on “a school closing or child care provider unavailability,” the statement from the employee should include:

  • The name and age of the child (or children) to be cared for,
  • The name of the school that has closed or place of care that is unavailable, and
  • A representation that no other person will be providing care for the child during the period for which the employee is receiving family medical leave.

Additionally, with respect to the employee’s inability to work or telework because of a need to provide care for a child older than fourteen (14) during daylight hours, a statement that special circumstances exist requiring the employee to provide care.

While this IRS guidance does provide covered employers with additional clarity on the types of forms and other documentation needed to obtain the sought-after refundable tax credits under the FFCRA, the IRS guidance also raises other questions that will need to be answered. For example, the IRS guidance does not specify what would satisfy “statement of the COVID-19 related reason the employee is requesting leave and written support for such reason.”  Legal commentators recommend that any certification forms distributed to employees requesting leave also include language indicating that “additional documentation may be required.”

As the IRS and DOL continue to release additional information on the process for employers to receive these important tax credits, we will continue to monitor further proposed legislation and its potential effects on employers.

Related Attorneys

EPA Issues Unprecedented Civil Enforcement Relaxation Policy Due to COVID-19

by

On March 26, 2020, U.S. EPA (EPA) announced a sweeping policy for relaxation of EPA enforcement of environmental non-compliance resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (“COVID Enforcement Policy” or “Policy”).  The Policy applies retroactively beginning on March 13, 2020.  The expansive scope of the Policy’s enforcement relaxation discretion is widely perceived as being unprecedented in EPA history.  The full text of the EPA Policy memorandum is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/202003/documents/oecamemooncovid19implications.pdf.

Policy “General Conditions”

If compliance is not “reasonably practicable” due to COVID-19, facilities with environmental compliance obligations should satisfy the following Policy “general conditions” in order for EPA to exercise its enforcement relaxation discretion (“General Conditions”):

  • Minimize the effects and duration of any non-compliance caused by COVID-19;
  • Identify the specific nature and dates of the non-compliance;
  • Identify how COVID-19 was the cause of the non-compliance and the decisions and actions taken in response, including “best efforts” to comply and steps taken to come into compliance at the earliest opportunity;
  • Return to compliance as soon as possible; and
  • Document the information, action, or condition specified in (1) – (4) above.

EPA expects to focus largely on situations that “may create an acute risk or imminent threat to public health or the environment”.   All ongoing enforcement matters will continue.

Primary compliance categories to which the Policy is applicable

The COVID Enforcement Policy addresses the following major compliance categories that are generally relevant to Mississippi facilities: (1) routine compliance monitoring and reporting, (2) facility operations and (3) critical infrastructure.

The Policy also addresses (1) public water systems regulated under the Safe Drinking Water System, (2) EPA settlement agreement and consent decree reporting obligation and milestones and (3) programs that EPA implements directly rather than by MDEQ.  Those portions of the Policy are not addressed in this article since they are not generally applicable to Mississippi facilities.

I. Routine compliance monitoring and reporting

EPA has determined that the COVID-19 pandemic may constrain the ability of facilities to perform the following environmental obligations:

  1. Routine compliance monitoring – including CEMS and stack tests, relative accuracy test audits, LDAR monitoring, fence line monitoring, RICE readings and monitoring, tank and piping inspections, assessments, or stormwater inspections;
  2. Integrity testing – including tank integrity testing (e.g., API 653) for compliance with certain “good air pollution control practices”;
  3. Sampling – including effluent sampling and testing, as well as cooling tower sampling;
  4. Laboratory analysis – including laboratory holding times and turn-around times;
  5. Training – including SPCC training, hazardous waste trainings, CAA section 129 renewals, and other annual re-certifications; and
  6. Reporting and certification – including reports and certifications associated with delayed activities described above, and late reports under permits or other regulatory obligations, including TRI and greenhouse gas inventory reporting.

If reporting is not “reasonably practicable” due to COVID-19, Mississippi facilities should maintain this information internally and make it available to MDEQ upon request. In general, EPA does not expect to seek penalties for violations of these obligations in situations where (1) EPA agrees that COVID-19 was the cause of the non-compliance and (2) the facility provides supporting documentation to EPA upon request.  After the Policy is no longer in effect, EPA does not plan to ask facilities to “catch-up” with missed monitoring or reporting if the underlying requirement applies to intervals of less than three months.

II. Facility operations

With regard to COVID-19 impacts on facility operations, the Policy includes the following key provisions:

  1. Facilities should contact MDEQ if facility operations impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic may create an acute risk or an imminent threat to human health or the environment. In Mississippi, EPA’s first step after this contact will be to consult with MDEQ to discuss measures to minimize or prevent the acute or imminent threat to health or the environment from the COVID-19-caused non-compliance.
  2. If a facility suffers from failure of air emission control or wastewater or waste treatment systems or other facility equipment that may result in exceedances of enforceable limitations on air emissions, water discharges, land disposal, or other unauthorized releases, the facility should notify MDEQ as quickly as possible. The notification also should include (1) information on the pollutants emitted, discharged, discarded, or released; (2) the comparison between the expected emissions or discharges, disposal, or release and any applicable limitation(s); and (3) the expected duration and timing of the exceedance(s) or releases. EPA will consult with MDEQ to determine the appropriate response.
  3. If a facility is a generator of hazardous waste and, due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, is unable to transfer the waste off-site within the time periods required under RCRA to maintain its generator status, the facility should continue to properly label and store such waste and comply with the Policy’s General Conditions (see above). If these steps are met, EPA will treat these facilities as “hazardous waste generators”, and not “treatment, storage and disposal” (TSD) facilities. In addition, EPA will treat “Very Small Quantity Generators” and “Small Quantity Generators” as retaining that status, even if the amount of hazardous waste stored on site exceeds a regulatory volume threshold due to the facility’s inability to arrange for shipping of hazardous waste off of the facility site due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  4. If a facility is an animal feeding operation, and, due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, is unable to transfer animals off-site and, solely as a result of the pandemic, meets the regulatory definition of concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), EPA will not treat these animal feeding operations as CAFOs (and will also not treat small CAFOs as medium CAFOs or medium CAFOs as large CAFOs).

III. Critical infrastructure

In situations where a facility is an “essential critical infrastructure”, EPA may consider a more “tailored” short-term “No Action Assurance” if EPA determines that is in the public interest. Such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA) Assistant Administrator – Susan Bodine (who issued the Policy memorandum).  EPA will consider “essential” the facilities that employ “essential critical infrastructure workers” as determined by guidance issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Exclusions from the Policy

The Policy does not provide EPA compliance enforcement discretion regarding:

  • Accidental releases;
  • Criminal violations;
  • Superfund and RCRA corrective action; and
  • Imports

Policy modifications/updates and termination

EPA will assess and update the Policy as needed and post a notification at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-policy-guidance-publications at least seven days prior to terminating the Policy.

If you have any questions concerning the COVID Enforcement Policy or related issues, please feel free to contact John Milner at jmilner@brunini.com or at (601) 960-6842.

Related Attorneys

U.S. Department of Labor Releases Model Posting for Families First Coronavirus Response Act

by

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released the first version of the required notice posting that is required as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).  You can find the current version of this poster by going to this DOL website: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/posters/FFCRA_Poster_WH1422_Non-Federal.pdf.  While the DOL did not indicate the date by which employers would need to post this notice poster, covered employers are advised to post it by at least April 1, 2020, the effective date of the FFCRA.  Each “covered employer”—those with 500 or less employees—must post this notice of the FFCRA requirements in “a conspicuous place on its premises of the employer where notices to employees are customarily posted.”  An employer may also satisfy this requirement by emailing (or directly mailing) the notice to its employees.  An employer may also post this notice on an employee information website (such as an intranet).

At this time, Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group suggests that employers wait to print out and post this material until March 31, 2020, as the DOL may issue an updated version.  If such an update is provided, the DOL should post the update in this location.

Related Attorneys