Brunini Law

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held July 12, 2016

by

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on July 12, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. Mike Bograd, RPG, chaired the meeting.

The Board approved minutes from both the Regular and Special June meetings. Also the Board approved non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the May meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases and permits to combine:

Surface Mining Bond Release:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Neely Trucking and Excavating Rankin P05-019AT No Additional Release
Dunn Roadbuilders LLC Forrest P06-14 Additional 30% Release

Surface Mining Permits to Combine:

Permittee County Permit
Business Properties, LLC Harrison P80-022T
S&B Industrial Minerals North America, Inc. Monroe P99-040T

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

Agricultural Branch:

The Board approved issuance of coverage under the AFO General Permit (MSG201874) and issuance of construction under the Storm Water Coverage (MSR107157) for Penny Farm in Lincoln County.  The application proposes eight poultry houses and construction activity on thirteen acres of disturbed land.  Staff stated that upon notification by the Applicant, three neighboring property owners submitted letters of concern; however, they did not attend the meeting.  Because the facility’s application is complete and the Applicant is in compliance, MDEQ staff recommended issuance of the Permit.

Solid Waste and Mining Branch:

The Board approved re-issuance of the Pretreatment Permit (MSP092258) for Waste Management of MS, Inc., Plantation Oaks Landfill and Recycling Center and Natchez Hauling in Adams County.  Staff noted that there are no changes to the existing permit.  A public hearing was held and no one was in opposition.  Based on staff recommendation, the Board approved reissuance of the permit.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ General Counsel advised the Board that the request for an evidentiary hearing on July 12, 2016 regarding the Starlanding Rubbish Site has been withdrawn and the prior decision is final.

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ General Counsel advised the Board that there will be a hearing on August 9, 2016 regarding the Permit Modification for Drying Facility Asset Holdings.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on August 9, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department 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.

 

 

Related Attorneys

Department of Labor Announces Increase in Wage & Hour Penalties for Employers

by

When it comes to wage and hour issues, most U.S. employers are focused on preparing for the Department of Labor’s (DOL) much-debated New Overtime Rule that is set to go into effect on December 1, 2016.  Most notably, under the New Overtime Rule, the requisite salary level for exempt employees jumps from $23,660 annually (or $455/week) to $47,476 ($913 per week).  However, the federal agency has not closed up shop for the year.

On June 30, 2016, the DOL announced  an increase in the dollar value of the civil penalties that that agency assesses to employers for certain violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Deemed an “interim adjustment,” pursuant to the 2015 Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division will increase the civil penalty assessed for “willful violations” from $1,100 to $1,894 per violation.

The DOL’s regulations define a “willful” violation of the minimum wage and overtime provisions as one in which the employer either knew that its conduct was prohibited by law, or showed a “reckless disregard” for the requirements of the law.  While there is no bright-line test on what qualifies as a willful violation, in 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employer committed a willful violation of the FLSA by failing to keep adequate records of extended hours worked by an employee.  See Ramos v. Al-Bataineh, 5th Cir., No. 13-20749 (March 30, 2015).

The DOL’s proposed increase represents a 73% jump in the value of assessed penalties—on a per violation basis.  Importantly, the DOL assesses this penalty in addition to any actual back wages owed to the employee(s).  Plus, section 16(a) of the FLSA authorizes criminal sanctions against any person who is shown to have violated the FLSA intentionally, deliberately, and voluntarily, or with reckless indifference to or disregard for the law’s requirements.

 

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held June 14, 2016

by

 

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on June 14, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.

The Board approved minutes from the May meeting. Also the Board approved non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the May meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases, application, permits to cancel, and permit to transfer

Surface Mining Bond Release:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
N.L. Carson Construction Co., Inc. Neshoba P09-019 Final 10% Release
W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. DeSoto P13-004T Additional 80% Release
W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. DeSoto P14-004 Additional 80% Release
Mississippi Gravel Sales, LLC Monroe P08-001A Additional 30% Release

Surface Mining Application:

Permittee County Permit
Lankford Consulting Harrison A1911

Surface Mining Permits to Cancel:

Permittee County Permit
Neely Trucking & Excavating Rankin P10-017A
Lamar County Board of Supervisors Lamar P94-045

Surface Mining Permit to transfer:

Permittee County Permit
Coastal Mining & Marine LLC Transfer to Pearlington Clay, LLC Hancock P06-027AT1

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

Construction Branch:

The Board approved issuance of the Modification of Ready Mix Concrete General Permit Coverage (MSG110038) for MMC Materials, Inc. in Horn Lake, DeSoto County.  Upon notification by the Applicant, a neighboring property owner submitted a letter of concern expressing health concerns.  MDEQ replied to the neighboring property owner on June 1, 2016.

Because facility’s application is complete and the facility is currently in compliance, MDEQ recommended issuance of the Modification.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board unanimously voted to elect Mr. Mike Bograd, RPG, State Geologist and Director of Office of Geology, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality as Chairman of the Board for 2016-2017 effective after this meeting and Mr. Dennis Riecke of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks as Vice Chairman.

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ General Council advised the Board that there will be an evidentiary hearing July 12, 2016 regarding the Starlanding Rubbish Sight.  Special Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth Bolin, Esq. will serve as the Hearing Officer in this matter.

Mr. Roy Furrh stated that MDEQ staff has completed their review of the Water Quality Certification and Stormwater Coverage applications pertaining to the Costco site and asked Board Members if they would be available for a Special Meeting on June 30th at 9:00 a.m.  Upon confirmation of enough Board members to have a quorum, Mr. Furrh notified everyone that MDEQ will move forward with the Proposed Meeting and that Notice will be given once confirmed.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on July 12, 2016 at 9 a.m.

Related Attorneys

EEOC Final Rules on Title I of the ADA and Title II of the GINA in relation to Employee Wellness Programs

by

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

The EEOC recently issued its final rule (“Final Rule”) on wellness programs (i.e.,
employee health programs) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).¹
These wellness programs may be offered within, or outside of, an employer’s group health plan.
The requirements of the Final Rule apply only to employee wellness programs that require
employees to respond to disability-related inquiries and/or undergo medical examinations. The
provisions of the Final Rule regarding notice and incentives will apply to employee wellness
programs as of the first day of the first plan year on or after January 1, 2017, for the health plan
used to determine the level of permissible incentive. The remainder of the Final Rule is effective
now, as it simply clarified existing regulations.

In the Final Rule, the EEOC responds to a number of comments from the public
regarding the operation of employee health programs. It specifically rejects commenters’
requests that an employee be allowed to provide a general certification or attestation that they are
receiving medical care for particular health risks factors in lieu of completing a health risk
assessment (“HRA”) or undergoing a medical examination. According to the EEOC, allowing
such an alternative would limit the effectiveness of the wellness programs as envisioned by the
ACA. The EEOC also declined to incorporate an “affordability standard” into the Final Rule
with respect to the incentive limits. Instead, it extended the 30% limit (under HIPAA and the
ACA) and agreed with the Treasury Regulations that the affordability of eligible employersponsored
coverage should be determined by assuming that employees will fail to satisfy the
requirements of a wellness program.

Not surprisingly, several commenters asked the EEOC to clarify what it means for a
wellness program “to be a part of, or provided by, a group health plan.” However, instead of
providing factors that would answer that question, the EEOC determined that all provisions of
the Final Rule should apply to wellness programs, regardless of whether they are offered within,
or outside of, an employer-sponsored group health plan, when the program includes disabilityrelated
inquiries and/or medical examinations.

The EEOC noted that wellness programs that include “a measurement, test, screening or
collection of health-related information without providing results, follow-up information, or advice designed to improve the health of participating employees would not be reasonably

designed to promote health or prevent disease, unless the collected information actually is used
to design a program that addresses at least a subset of conditions identified.” Furthermore, the
EEOC concluded that imposing a penalty solely based on an employee’s failure to achieve a
health outcome would, in many cases, discriminate based upon a disability.

Voluntariness

The Final Rule also clarifies that a wellness program is voluntary not simply because it
gives employees an option to participate, but also because offering an incentive of up to 30% of
the total cost of self-only coverage does not, without more, make a wellness program coercive.
While an employer may require an employee to pay more for a certain type of coverage if the
employee does not participate in a wellness program that includes disability-related inquiries or
medical examinations, an employer may not deny access “to a benefit available by virtue of
employment.” In other words, an employer cannot condition participation in a group health
plan upon participation in a wellness program, including an HRA. The EEOC expressly
rejected a commenter’s proposal to allow wellness program participants the opportunity to
participate in a comprehensive health plan while offering non-participants a less comprehensive
plan. Instead, the EEOC proposed that a non-participant could pay more for the same
comprehensive health plan by virtue of not receiving incentives of up to 30% of the total cost of
self-only coverage.

Notice Requirements

All wellness programs, whether a part of a group health plan or not, that require
employees to respond to disability-related inquiries and/or undergo medical examinations must
provide employees with a notice, in plain language, that explains the medical information that
will be collected, how it will be used, who will receive it, the restrictions on the disclosure of the
information, and the methods that will be used to prevent improper disclosure. Existing
notifications must be revised, or a new notification developed, when current notifications do not
meet these requirements. The EEOC will provide a sample notice in the next few weeks.

Incentives

The EEOC confirmed that an employer may offer incentives up to a maximum of 30% of
the total cost of self-only coverage (including the employee’s and the employer’s contribution),
whether as a reward or penalty. In cases where an employer offers a single group health plan but
an employee who does not enroll in the plan may still participate in the wellness program, the
employer may offer an incentive of up to 30% of the total cost of self-only coverage under the
plan. Where an employer has more than one group health plan, but participation in a wellness
program again does not depend on the employee’s enrollment in the plan, the employer may
offer an incentive of up to 30% of the total cost of the lowest cost self-only coverage under a
major medical group health plan offered by the employer. If the employer does not offer a group
health plan or group health insurance coverage, but an employee may participate in a wellness
program, the employer may offer an incentive of up to 30% of the cost that would be charged for
self-only coverage (for a 40-year-old nonsmoker) in the second lowest cost Silver Plan available
through the state or federal Exchange in the location that the employer identifies as its principal
place of business.

Non-financial and de minimis incentives must be included within the calculation of the
30% cap, despite any perceived difficulty in valuing them. Employers can use any “reasonable”
method to determine the value of in-kind incentives (e.g., a premier parking space).

The Final Rule does not address incentives wellness programs may offer for dependent or
spousal participation because the ADA’s prohibitions on discrimination apply only to applicants
and employees. Nonetheless, employers should be sure to abide by the requirements of Title II
of GINA (discussed herein) in collecting information on an employee’s family member in
exchange for incentives.

With smoking cessation programs, a covered entity may offer incentives as high as 50%
of the cost of self-only coverage, depending upon the type of program. The EEOC reiterates that
the interpretive guidance for the PHS Act states that “because any biometric screening or
other medical procedure that tests for the presence of nicotine or tobacco is a medical
examination under the ACA, the 30 percent incentive limit would apply to such a screening
or procedure.”² On the other hand, smoking cessation programs that simply ask employees
whether or not they use tobacco do not ask disability-related inquiries or include medical
examinations, and therefore may offer incentives of up to 50% of the cost of self-only coverage.

Confidentiality/Privacy

Medical information collected through an employee health program may only be
provided to a covered entity in aggregate terms that do not disclose the identity of specific
individuals, other than as needed to administer the health plan or as specifically permitted under
29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(d)(4). A covered entity is also prohibited from requiring an employee to
agree to the sale, exchange, transfer, or other disclosure of medical information (except as to
carry out the operations of the wellness program) or to waive any confidentiality provisions as a
condition of participating or earning incentives.

GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) applies to
employers with 15 or more employees. In the context of GINA, “genetic information” is
interpreted to mean information about the manifestation of disease or disorder. The Title II Final
Rule (“Final Rule”) does not incorporate a restriction on the collection of genetic information to
the minimum necessary for the employer-sponsored wellness program activities or any limitation
on accessing genetic information from other sources. Rather, in the Final Rule, the EEOC
reiterates that employee wellness programs that collect genetic information must be “reasonably
designed”³ to promote health and prevent disease. Employers can request, require, or purchase
genetic information as part of health or genetic services only when these services are reasonably
designed to promote health or prevent disease.

The provisions of this Final Rule apply regardless of whether a wellness program is
offered as a part of, or outside of, an employer-sponsored group health plan.

The provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 1635.8(b)(2)(iii) on wellness program inducements will
apply prospectively, beginning on the first day of the first plan year on or after January 1, 2017,
for the health plan used to determine the incentives.

Inducements and Spouse Participation in Wellness Programs

A covered entity may offer an inducement to an individual for completion of a health
risk assessment, including one that has questions about family medical history or other genetic
information.4 The inducement, however, must be made available regardless of whether or not
the participant answers questions regarding genetic information, and the health risk assessment
must be administered in connection with the spouse’s receipt of health or genetic services offered
by the employer. Inducements otherwise may not be offered for individuals to provide genetic
information.

The same general inducement limits apply under the GINA Final Rule as the ADA Final
Rule (i.e., 30% of the total cost of self-only coverage) and are applied individually to the
employee and spouse. The portion of an inducement attributable to the spouse’s provision of
information about his or her manifestation of disease or disorder does not have to be paid to the
spouse but it may be paid in whatever way the remaining portion of the inducement is made.
As in the ADA Final Rule, the EEOC declines in the GINA Final Rule to adopt a medical
certification option in alternative to providing information about the manifestation of disease or
disorder when participating in an employer wellness program. The EEOC also declined to adopt
commenters’ suggestion that the employer only be required to comply with authorization
requirements when more than de minimis inducements are offered for genetic information in a
wellness program. “Inducements” include both financial and in-kind inducements, though
employers have flexibility in valuing in-kind incentives.

Medical Information of Employee’s Children

The Final Rule expressly prohibits inducements in return for information about the
manifestation of disease or disorder in an employee’s children and makes no distinction between
adult and minor children or between biological and adopted children. While an employee’s
children are permitted to participate in an employer’s wellness program on a voluntary basis, the
program may not offer any inducement in exchange for information about the manifestation of
disease or disorder in the child.

Confidentiality

The Final Rule reiterates that employers and other covered entities maintaining genetic
information must keep the information in medical files that are separate from personnel files, and
the information must be treated as confidential. Genetic information can only be disclosed in six
very limited circumstances set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1635.9, none of which would likely occur
except for an employee’s request for the information. When employers obtain genetic
information as a part of an employer-sponsored wellness program, the authorization signed by
the participating individual must explain the restrictions on disclosure of the information; that the
individually identifiable genetic information is provided only to the individual receiving the
services and the providers involved in services; and that individually identifiable genetic
information is only available for health or genetic services and is only disclosed to the employer
in aggregate terms.

A covered entity may not condition participation in an employer-sponsored wellness
program or an inducement on an employee, his or her spouse, or other covered dependent
agreeing to the sale, exchange, sharing, transfer, or other disclosure of genetic information,
except where expressly permitted under the regulations

Notice/Authorization Requirements

Employers must provide authorizations to individuals to be signed prior to sharing
genetic information as part of health or genetic services, including prior to HRAs for employees
and spouses. The authorization must explain that individually identifiable genetic information is
provided only to the individual receiving the services and the licensed health care professionals
or board certified genetic counselors involved in providing the services and that individually
identifiable genetic information is only available for purposes of the health or genetic services.
The information cannot be disclosed to the employer other than in aggregate terms.

This material is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal
issues that arise, legal counsel should be consulted.

1 Other federal laws, including Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, apply to wellness programs that are offered through group health plans
as well.

2 “Although the fact that someone smokes is not information about a disability, the ADA’s provisions
limiting disability-related inquiries and medical examinations apply to all applicants and employees, whether or not
they have disabilities. Moreover, whatever benefit smoking cessation programs that are part of wellness programs
may have, the Commission can discern no reason for treating medical examinations to detect the use of nicotine
differently from any other medical examinations when the ADA makes no such distinction.” 81 Fed. Reg. 31136.

3 Satisfaction of the “reasonably designed” standard is determined based on a review of the relevant facts
and circumstances. However, to meet the standard, the program must “have a reasonable chance of improving the
health of, or preventing disease in, participating individuals, and must not be overly burdensome, a subterfuge for
violating Title II of GINA or other laws prohibiting employment discrimination, or highly suspect in the method
chosen to promote health or prevent disease.”

4 The health risk assessment must include a requirement that the individual provide prior, knowing,
voluntary, and written authorization, and the authorization form must describe the confidentiality protections and
restrictions on the disclosure of genetic information. See 29 C.F.R. § 1635.8(b)(2)(iii).

Related Attorneys

Five Things I Learned Coaching Little League Baseball

by

This spring, I returned to the wondrous fields of little league baseball and was fortunate enough to relive some of my happiest memories as a child through the eyes of my oldest son, whom I had the pleasure to coach. If you know me at all, you know that I love baseball, but I can’t think of any time in my life when I enjoyed it more than between the ages of 10 through 14. Those were the times when it was all consuming, but still just a game. When my every thought could be dedicated to it, but my stress levels were rarely raised by it. Baseball was still fun when I was older, but some of the wonder is taken out of it when your coach’s livelihood depends on it and your mistakes can mean much more than losing your rights to a dairy queen milkshake after the game.

This being said, I hate what we as a society are doing to little league baseball. We have removed it from the joyous goat ranches of recreational, Babe Ruth leagues and transferred it almost completely to the exclusive realm of “tournament baseball,” where 7 year olds have to worry about losing their spot on their team when they go 0 for 4, 9 year old pitchers have to worry about holding a runner on base and throwing 150 pitches a weekend, games are played until well after midnight, 40 year old coaches with three days growth of facial hair and a belly that betrays the fact that they are 20 years past their athletic prime berate a right fielder for missing a cut-off man, and the real goal of the organizations running it is to make as much money as possible off of parental conceit and paranoia of falling behind. The shame of it is, in today’s world of “specialization,” coaches and parents have guided little league baseball down a path where many kids who experience it either hate it by the time they get to high school or have had two Tommy John’s surgeries before the age of 18. For many years I avoided it out of principle, with the eventual realization that it is slowly becoming the only game in town. Therefore, in order to allow my son the chance to continue to experience the game that has given so much to me, I decided to coach his tournament baseball team with the hopes that I could control the experience enough to protect him from its ills.

The result, to no surprise, has been a losing baseball team. When your benefits are player development and enjoyment for a greater baseball future tomorrow, your cost is going to be long innings today at the hands of better teams who have carefully culled their talent pool and have played 100 games since this time last year. With my apologies to Thomas Paine, there is nothing that tries a man’s soul like willing 9 ten year olds to get 3 outs. However, because tournament baseball has become so cutthroat, it is also a pretty good microcosm of what it is like to manage a bank today in an ever increasingly hostile environment. Below I will discuss the top five things I learned about guiding an organization through challenging times that hopefully can speak to community bankers as well.

1. No One is Going to Feel Sorry for You

When top seeds in the bracket are decided by how bad you beat your competition, and 10 year old catchers are behind the plate, expect every baserunner to take second base, even when you are getting beat 20 – 5. When your team hasn’t won a game yet this season, but the better teams need an easier path to the finals, expect to always play the top seeds in your pool so that they can be certain to get a higher seed in the bracket. When your winless team gets the third out in the bottom of an inning up 8 – 5 with 30 seconds left, expect to have to start the next inning to finish the game (which you lose 10 – 9). This is just how it is. No freebees are given, and everything has to be earned. No one feels sorry for you when you are struggling in tournament baseball. There may be the occasional “good luck” from the opposing team during the coin flip, or possibly even a stray comment about how they appreciate the fact your team keeps fighting, but in the end, you literally only eat what you can kill. Feeling sorry for yourself is worthless.

Such is also the case in community banking these days. Growing regulation and a hostile regulatory and political environment is choking the life out of our banks on Main Street, and despite the occasional “focus group” or “community banking conferences” where regulators feign empathy for those problems, no one really cares. Politician’s will wax eloquently about how community banks are the life blood of their communities and the only hope for small businesses, but when the vote comes up to really do something about it through legislation, they cave to other special interests every time. As net interest margins continue to shrink, members of the Federal Reserve may act concerned about the affect their interest rate policies are having on community banks, but in the end they will act in a way that is politically expedient to help keep stock values afloat at the cost of an uncertain economic future. This is just the way the world is, and it is forcing community banks to shift from their traditional business model, which typically prioritized community growth and development over profits, to a meaner, leaner model focused on economies of scale and efficiency that causes banks to out-grow their communities in an effort to just survive. Unfortunately, community banks can’t afford to hold on to principles and continue to lose capital like I can choose to hold on to baseball ideals and lose games. Their existence is dependent upon “winning” games today. However, as I fear the current baseball environment is drying up the joy and future of that great game, I also fear that the current banking environment is drying up the future of our community banks, and even worse, our rural communities. Don’t expect sympathy for that dilemma, though, because in the end, no one seems to care.

2. You Have to Eliminate Unforced Errors

When the other team is much better than you, you do yourself absolutely no favors when you have to get 5 outs every inning and they only have to get 3. If there is a fly ball to center, or a grounder to second base, you have to make that play to have a chance, because your competition certainly will. I can’t even count how many times this season the difference in our runs scored and the runs scored by the other team consists almost exclusively of runs that we allowed after what should have been our third out. The other problem is that unforced errors seem to snowball. One error leads to pitcher frustration and a walk or another error, which only compounds the problem. We are still trying to implement this strategy, but I think we have learned that our ability to compete will be directly tied to our ability to just “pitch and catch” and make routine plays.

In community banking, the best analogy to unforced errors is poor loan quality. When margins are tight and overhead is growing, a failure to monitor the credit quality in your portfolio can hurt more than an overthrow to first base. One or two years of relaxed credit standards or a rogue loan officer can lead to loan losses that might be more manageable in better times but can quickly eat into precious capital in the current environment. Therefore, it is important that, during these difficult days, community banks keep their eye on the ball and avoid extending beyond their comfort zone with loan quality. Like a first baseman that stretches before he knows which direction the throw is going, compromising credit standards in an attempt to increase earnings during these difficult times will leave you unable to maneuver when the next recession hits.

3. People May Not Remember What You Do, But They Are Sure To Remember How You Make Them Feel

As someone who coached through our local league this year, I was required to attend a pre-season coach’s clinic that I was convinced would be useless. Why I needed to waste three hours of my time listening to a coach give me information I already knew to pass down to 10 year olds who wouldn’t listen half of the time was beyond me. Needless to say, I did not approach it with the best attitude.

To my surprise, though, the instructor did provide some helpful tips, and it was what he said at the end of the session that stuck with me the most. He began by asking each of us to raise our hands if we remembered what the record of our 10 year old baseball team was. Somewhat surprisingly, not one of us responded by raising our hands. He then asked us to raise our hands if we remembered who our 10 year old baseball coach was. At that point, everyone in the room raised their hands. He closed his point by stating that, no matter how bad each one of us wants to make the little league coaches Hall of Fame, no such institution exists, and no amount of wins will get us there; however, every player we coach will remember us, and wouldn’t we much rather them remember us as the one that engendered in them a love for this great game that they never lost than as a mean SOB that they avoid when they see us in the grocery store 20 years from now. The choice was completely up to us.
Like my players, your customers and employees are not likely to remember that super-low interest rate you gave them on the last loan or whether their raise five years ago was 2% or 2.5%; however, how you treat them is certain to make an impression, and they will always remember whether you made them feel like a valuable part of your bank or as another reason your day has not gone the way you wanted it to. How we treat people matters, not only in little league and banking, but also in life, and those of us who forget that are doomed to dirty looks in the grocery store, no matter how well we perform.

4. Invest in People With Character and Their Growth Will Surprise You

One of our many challenges on the team this year has been that we have several kids who have just not played a whole lot of baseball; however, to their credit, they have all worked hard and become better players. One of my players sticks out, though, because I never thought he had a chance. He was one of our later additions to the team, and when I put him on the roster I wasn’t even sure what he looked like. I knew we needed another player, though, and his mom said he wanted to play, so he was our man. George, as we will call him, came to the first practice in January incredibly rough, looking as if he had never played a game of catch in his life. My initial hope for George was that he would eventually become either bored or discouraged so that I would never have to deal with the dilemma of sitting him on the bench every game for fear that he would embarrass himself and the team.

What I underestimated, though, was George’s determination and growing love for this great game. George quickly fell in love with baseball, and this spring he claimed any free moment or dollar his dad had by begging him for trips to the batting cage or for weeklong baseball camps held in the area. I also underestimated George’s intelligence and attention span, which soaked up every helpful tip he was given and maximized every opportunity he had to grow as a baseball player. George still may not be my most talented player, and he has a long way to go before I consider him one of my best, but he is no longer my worst, and he has made some serious contributions to the team. Just this past weekend, he caught a fly ball in right field to mercifully end a long inning, becoming a savior I never would have suspected in January. While there have been many challenges and heartaches this season, George has certainly been one of the bright spots, and his experience epitomizes why I wanted to do this in the first place: to generate a love for this great game in the hearts of kids who had been excluded from it and watch them grow into players I never thought they could be.

Banks, like 10 year old baseball tournament teams, and all other organizations for that matter, tend to focus much more acquiring talented personnel with impressive resumes to do the job immediately than on developing some of their current employees who may have much less talent or experience today but with encouragement and inspiration have the character and work ethic to become a critical contributor in the future. Their path to success may not be as certain and their learning curve will definitely be steeper, but if they are motivated and willing to work hard, their upside is possibly greater and the initial overhead that must be invested to get them is sure to be much less painful. When they do develop into the banker you never thought they could be, you can take pride in knowing that you were the one who helped them get there.

5. Hope Changes Everything

While it is incredibly easy to focus only on the challenges when you are losing baseball games or dealing with bank examiners, the ability to maintain hope and project it to others around you is not only important, it is critical to survival. My son is a pretty good athlete that chose (possibly with his father’s prompting) to play for his dad instead of on some other more competitive teams with different goals; however, he has had a pretty tough year with all of the losing. Much like his father, he hates to lose more than he likes to win, and despite the fact that he and I both acknowledged at the outset that we might not win a game this year, he has gone through some valleys when his faith in our decision and his abilities has been hanging by a thread. Self-confidence can be a challenge for any pre-pubescent 10 year old, but it is especially challenging when you lose 15 baseball games in a row.

The low-point came late one night after he and I were driving back home following a game he pitched pretty well in but lost nonetheless by 10 runs. He was distraught at the fact that he continued to lose ball games, one of which he was on the mound when the winning run crossed the plate. He claimed that he wanted to quit altogether, one of his father’s greatest fears. The next morning at 9 AM, we had to be back on the baseball field, and as fate would have it, my son was on the mound in the bottom of the last inning with the score tied 5-5. He came in to pitch when we were down 5-3, and our team rallied to score two runs in the top of the inning to tie it. Two errors later, we lost the game 6-5, and there was not a dry eye in the dugout, including mine. After 10 minutes of silence on the ride home, to my surprise, my son was the first to speak when he said “Daddy, I think we are going to win a game.” At the time I was certain his spirit was crushed and all hope was lost, he found hope in the fact that we had come so close to our first win. I wish I could give you the story book ending and tell you that we won our next game, but unfortunately we are still waiting on that. The moral of the story, though, is since that morning, other than the occasional 10 year old tantrum, my son’s attitude has completely changed thanks to hope, and it has made him and our baseball team better.

We have to remember this lesson in banking. It is so easy for us to get caught up in the latest CFPB threat, or the next regulation, or the terrible yields earned on assets, or the current political environment, but the leaders of our banks have to find some way to give hope to their shareholders, employees, and customers. Community banking, after all, is a calling, and the blessings it provides our society are much greater than the sum of the profits generated by its institutions. We must find hope in the differences made in communities each day by caring bankers and cling to the faith that the hard work will one day be rewarded, if not in this life, than certainly in the next.

 

 

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held May 10, 2016

by

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Environmental Practice Group of the Brunini Law Firm publishes a summary of the proceedings of each monthly meeting of the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board and of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. We strive to provide, in a succinct newsletter format, the key points addressed in each meeting that will be of interest to the regulated community in Mississippi.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter it 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) 960-684

Meeting Summary

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on May 10, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.  The Board approved minutes from the April Regular meeting along with non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the April meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases.

Surface Mining Bond Releases:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Eutaw Construction Co., Inc. Lee P01-008 Final 25% release
Eutaw Construction Co., Inc. Madison P10-009T No additional release
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Yazoo P06-003AA Initial 10% release
W.G. Yates & Sons Construction DeSoto P13-008T Initial 10% release

The Board canceled the Surface Mining Permits held by Yazoo County Board of Supervisors (P01-002 and P91-208T).  MDEQ staff informed the Board that government entities are not required to post bond for surface mining permits and that all areas affected by this permit have been fully reclaimed.

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

There were no items to discuss.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board will hold officer elections at the next meeting.

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ Legal Counsel stated that an evidentiary hearing for Star Landing Rubbish Site in DeSoto County has been requested by two individuals.  The hearing has been scheduled for July 2, 2016.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on June 14, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC 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.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

Are You Ready?-(For Expanded Employee Overtime Eligibility)

by

The United States Department of Labor (the DOL) has released its Final Rule that will broaden federal overtime pay regulations to cover 4.2 million additional workers who are currently exempt from overtime eligibility.  The Final Rule updates the regulations governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA).

The FLSA requires employers to pay its “non-exempt employees” overtime (1 ½ the workers’ “regular rate of pay”) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.   The DOL’s regulations implementing the FLSA set forth a variety of employment classifications that are “exempt” from the FLSA’s overtime requirement, including employees performing executive, administrative, and/or professional job duties.  In order for an employee to qualify as an exempt “white collar” employee, he/she must meet three “tests”:  (1) the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed; (2) the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount; and (3) the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties (as defined by the regulations).  The DOL last updated these regulations in 2004, setting the minimum salary threshold at $455 per week (or $23,660 annually).

The DOL’s Final Rule raises the minimum salary level for exempt employees to $913 per week (or $47,476 annually) and increases the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $134,004 annually (previously set at $100,000).  Additionally, the Final Rule establishes a mechanism for automatically updating the minimum salary level every three years.  Finally, the Final Rule allows employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10% of the new standard salary level.  The Final Rule did not change the duties needed to qualify for the “white collar” exemption.

The Final Rule has been anticipated since the DOL released its proposed rule in July 2015.  The Final Rule’s salary level increase is less than the proposed rule’s projected salary level of $970 per week (or $50,440 annually).  However, the Final Rule’s salary level for “highly compensated employees” is more than the proposed rule’s projected salary level of $122,148.  Finally, the Final Rule’s mechanism for automatically updating the salary level every three years is different than the proposed rule’s mechanism for automatically updating the salary level annually.

In an email yesterday, President Obama stated that the Final Rule “is a step in the right direction to strengthen and secure the middle class by raising Americans’ wages.”  Vice President Biden, who characterized the Final Rule as “restoring and expanding access to the middle class,” is expected to promote the Final Rule today in Columbus, Ohio.  Opponents of the Final Rule have argued that it places a huge cost and burden on employers and demotes millions of workers.  Members of Congress who oppose the Final Rule have stated that they will attempt to block it during a mandated congressional review period.  However, any such attempts are expected to be vetoed by President Obama.

The Final Rule will go into effect on December 1, 2016.  Future automatic updates will occur every three years, beginning on January 1, 2020.  Although the Final Rule does not become effective for several months, employers should be proactive and engage their legal counsel to begin planning for the change now.  Preparations should include auditing current practices and projecting the cost of change and FLSA compliance under the anticipated new framework. This includes evaluating the possibility and effects of significantly higher operating costs.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Labor and Employment Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC 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.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein

Related Attorneys

OSHA Releases Final/Updated Workplace Injury Reporting Rule

by

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) finalized a newly updated Rule governing employer responsibilities in recordkeeping and reporting regarding workplace injuries and illnesses.  Effective in January 2017, the new Rule requires employers to electronically submit information about covered workplace injuries and illnesses to OSHA, for posting on the agency’s website.  The new electronic submission requirements will apply to employers with 250 or more employees that are already required by OSHA to keep such records.  Additionally, smaller businesses (those with 20-249 employees) may have to comply if they are in particularly dangerous industries.

Currently, OSHA (or an employee) may request work-related illness and injury records, and such records must be posted in the workplace.   OSHA’s website already posts injury and illness data for more than 240,000 work sites collected between 2002 and 2011.  What’s new in today’s Rule is that employers will now be required to send all such information to OSHA, and to send it electronically.  It is estimated that the new regulation will require approximately 432,000 workplaces with 20-249 employees in high hazard industries and 34,000 workplaces with more than 250 employees to upload injury and illness data or summaries to OSHA on an annual basis.

To ensure that the injury data on an employer’s OSHA logs are accurate and complete, the final Rule also aims to encourage and promote an employee’s right to report injuries and illnesses without fear of retaliation, by clarifying that an employer must have a reasonable procedure for reporting work-related injuries that does not discourage employees from reporting.  This aspect of the Rule targets employer programs and policies that, while nominally promoting safety, have the effect of discouraging workers from reporting injuries and, in turn leading to incomplete or inaccurate records of workplace hazards.

U.S. Deputy Labor Secretary Chris Lu said that the new Rule will increase workplace transparency.  “OSHA’s final Rule will modernize the current system by taking establishment-specific injury information that is already collected by employers and making it available to the public once it is cleaned of personally identifiable information,” Lu said. “The data, however, will only be accurate if employees feel free to report injuries and illnesses without fear of retaliation. To ensure complete and accurate reporting, the Rule includes provisions that protect the rights of workers who report these incidents.”

Workplace advocates and OSHA believe the Rule will encourage stricter compliance with workplace safety laws, and may make it easier to identify common occupational hazards.  However, opponents to the Rule, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the new requirements are overly burdensome and “provide special interest groups with information that can be misconstrued and distorted in a manner that does not reflect business’s commitment to the safety of this nation’s employees.”

This Newsletter is a publication of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC 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.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality Summary of Meeting Held April 28, 2016

by

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Environmental Practice Group of the Brunini Law Firm publishes a summary of the proceedings of each monthly meeting of the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board and of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. We strive to provide, in a succinct newsletter format, the key points addressed in each meeting that will be of interest to the regulated community in Mississippi.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter it 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.

Meeting Summary

The Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality convened at 9:00 a.m. on April 28, 2016, at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  The Commission approved minutes from the previous meeting held on February 25, 2016.  Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

Commission Approval of Environmental Covenant

The Commission approved the Environmental Covenant with the U.S. General Services regarding the remediation of property located adjacent to 3505 25th Avenue, Gulfport, Mississippi, referred to as the “USDA APHIS Laboratory (AI#69227).”   The Site was the former Analytical and Natural Products Chemistry Lab (ANPCL), Center for Plant Science Health and Technology (CPHST).  Environmental Site Assessments have revealed a release of hazardous substances impacting soils and groundwater, in excess of Target Remediation Goals (TRGs).   Therefore, remediation of the site is necessary.  The staff 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.

FY2017 Title V Fee Recommendation

The Commission approved MDEQ staff’s recommendation to set the FY2017 Title V permit fee at $47.00 per ton of regulated air pollutants with a minimum fee of $250.00.  A public hearing concerning the fee was held on April 6, 2016.  No comments were received.

Adoption of Amendments to 11 Mississippi Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 5, Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and Associated Revision to the Mississippi State Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution

The Commission approved staff’s recommendation to adopt the proposed regulation amendments and SIP Revision.  The amendments to 11 Miss. Admin. Code, Pt. 2, Ch. 5, “Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality” and the associated Revision to the State Implementation Plan for Control of Air Pollution (SIP Revision) involve the adoption, by reference, of recent changes to federal rules in order to keep state regulations consistent with federal requirements.  Specifically, the amendments will remove the portions of the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule which was removed from the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) regulations on August 19, 2015.  A public hearing was held on March 18, 2016 and no comments other than from EPA were received.  EPA’s suggested changes were for clarity purposes and such changes were incorporated in the Amendment.

Stephanie Howard, Executrix of the Estate of Gerald Donald-Request for an Evidentiary Hearing

Hearing Officer Ricky Luke (Assistant Attorney with the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office and the Hearing Officer appointed by the Commission in this matter) presented his Findings and Recommendation for the Commission’s consideration.  The Commission approved Hearing Officer’s recommendation that the oil company (“Defendants”) Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Dismiss be granted.

A Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Dismiss were filed by the oil company defendants in the referenced matter.  Stephanie Howard, (“Petitioner”) owns property in Wayne County that she claims is contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive material related to a previous truck washing operation conducted on the site by Davis Brothers.  Petitioner claims that Davis Brothers contracted with the oil company defendants who contaminated the site.  Petitioner filed the current administrative action seeking a Commission ruling that the defendants were responsible for clean-up of her property because the Circuit Court of Wayne County required Petitioner to exhaust her administrative remedies through the Commission before Petitioner would be allowed to pursue her suit for damages in Circuit Court against the oil company defendants.   Petitioner had also filed a lawsuit in federal court for damages related to the alleged contamination.

Petitioner failed to disclose her ownership of the property and the federal and state lawsuits as assets as required in a bankruptcy proceeding she previously filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.  Because Petitioner failed to disclose the property and the lawsuits as assets of her bankruptcy estate, the Bankruptcy Court ruled Petitioner was judicially estopped from pursuing her claims related to the alleged contamination of her property including the administrative claim now pending before the Commission.

The Bankruptcy Court denied Petitioner’s request to stay its decision pending her appeal of the Court’s decision to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division.  The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision and the Petitioner appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Citing the Bankruptcy Court’s judicial estoppel finding, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, dismissed Petitioner’s separate federal lawsuit for damages with prejudice. Before the Bankruptcy Court entered its decision, Petitioner and the oil company defendants entered an Agreed Order with the Commission agreeing to stay this matter. (Agreed Order No. 6304 13, August 27, 2013).

The Commission had previously designated Assistant Attorney General Ricky Luke as a hearing officer in this matter.   Mr. Luke conducted a hearing on the oil company defendants’ Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Dismiss on December 9, 2015, and allowed extensive briefing on this matter.   The Commission has previously been provided materials for review which included copies of the Commission Agreed Order to Stay, Motion to Lift, Motion to Dismiss, Response, Reply, the transcript for the hearing held before Hearing Officer Luke on December 9, 2015, other Briefing and the Hearing Officer’s Findings and Recommendation to the Commission.

CERTIFICATIONS APPROVED

Asbestos:                     226 certifications

Lead Paint:                   100 certifications

Underground Storage Tanks:             25 certifications

EMERGENCY CLEAN-UP EXPENSES APPROVED

Eleven (9) emergency clean-up expenditures occurred since the last report.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS APPROVED

Seventeen (17) administrative orders were issued by the Executive Director and approved by the Commission since the last report.  These include the following matters:

Program Area Number of Orders Penalty Range
NPDES 3 $937.50 – $10,000
Construction Stormwater 2 $15,150 – $20,162
Solid Waste 2 $8,400 – $75,000
Surface Mining 1 $5,000
Industrial Stormwater 1 $17,500
Brownfield Agreement 2 None
Wet Deck Log Spray General Permit 1 $15,000
Illegal Dump 1 $28,000

The Commission approved an Order adopting proposed amendments to MDEQ’s regulations for Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate and Coastal Waters.

The Commission an Order increasing the exam fee for the wastewater certification examination to $45.

Other Business:  Gary Rikard, MDEQ Executive Director, announced that the Legislature retained funding for the agency at current levels.

The next Commission meeting is scheduled for May 26, 2016 at 9 am.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department 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.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held April 12, 2016

by

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Environmental Practice Group of the Brunini Law Firm publishes a summary of the proceedings of each monthly meeting of the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board and of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. We strive to provide, in a succinct newsletter format, the key points addressed in each meeting that will be of interest to the regulated community in Mississippi.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter it 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.

Meeting Summary

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on April 12, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.  The Board approved minutes from the March Regular meeting along with non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the March meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases.

Surface Mining Bond Releases:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Yazoo P05-029A Initial 10% release
Preston Dobbs Truck Service Monroe P02-049A Initial 30% release
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Yazoo P93-076 Initial 10% release
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Yazoo P01-027 Initial 10% release
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Yazoo P02-048 Initial 10% release

Mississippi Lignite Mining Company

The Board approved a revision of a permit expansion for Mississippi Lignite Mining Company.  The approved expansion will include mining in an additional area and a new freshwater diversion.  MDEQ held a public meeting on February 10, 2016 and comments were received from the attendees.  After the meeting, MDEQ received four letters raising concerns about the project.  However, the permit applicant and MDEQ have resolved such concerns.  Noting that the project application was complete and in accordance with all state and federal environmental regulations, MDEQ recommended issuance of the permit.

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

Construction and Building Materials Branch

The Board approved a modification for B and B Concrete Company, Inc., Oxford division (MSG110081).  This approval allowed a modification of the facility’s Ready Mix Concrete Permit and associated Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”).  MDEQ staff received two letters of objection from members of the public during the public notice period.  The letters raised concerns about dust, noise, and stormwater runoff.  After addressing these concerns, MDEQ staff noted that the applications for modification of the General Permit and SWPPP were complete and met all technical requirements for federal and state environmental regulations.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board welcomed Julie McLemore of the MS Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce.  Ms. McLemore will be replacing Jim Lipe. Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ Chief Counsel, stated that an evidentiary hearing for Star Landing Rubbish Site in DeSoto County has been requested by two individuals.  The hearing has been scheduled for July 2, 2016.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on May 10, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department 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.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys