In a recent mandamus action, the Supreme Court of Ohio had the opportunity to construe Ohio’s saltwater injection well permitting scheme. See State ex rel. Omni Energy Group, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Oil & Gas Resources Mgt., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5581. In Omni, the Court discussed whether (1) the Division of Oil & Gas Resources Management had the right to call a public meeting concerning Omni’s permit application, (2) Omni had a right to compel the Division to rule on the validity of objections received to its permit application, and (3) the Division could schedule a hearing on those objections after a certain statutory deadline expired. You can read the Court’s decision here.
The Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Real Estate & Professional Licensing (the “Division”), recently informed Ohio’s “land professionals” (i.e., oil and gas landmen registered with the Division) that their current registrations remain valid until July 1, 2021 pursuant to House Bill 404. In order to maintain their registrations, land professionals must renew them no later than July 1, 2021.
However, the Division warned land professionals that H.B. 404 does not include an extension for renewals due after April 1, 2021. Thus, land professionals annual 2021 renewal is due no later than April 30, 2021.
This post is an update to our October 2, 2020 blog post regarding U.S EPA’s final rule overturning U.S. EPA’s ‘Once In, Always In’ policy for major sources of hazardous air pollutants. Notably, the final rule was published in the November 19, 2020 Federal Register and, thus, the rule becomes effective on January 19, 2021.
Please contact us with any questions or for assistance regarding your facility’s permitting and emission requirements in light of U.S. EPA’s new rule.
The Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Real Estate & Professional Licensing, recently reached out to Ohio’s “land professionals” (i.e., oil and gas landmen registered with the Division) concerning the renewal of their registrations. Pursuant to House Bill 197, land professionals must file their renewal paperwork with the Division on or before December 1, 2020. Failure to file by December 1, 2020 will result in the expiration of the land professional’s registration. Those land professionals who have not yet filed their renewal paperwork can expect a reminder letter from the Division around the end of October, 2020.
On September 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted appeals from the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decisions in Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen, Case No. 2020-Ohio-3042, and Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen, Case No. 2020-Ohio-3043, as well as the Seventh District Court of Appeals’ decision in Fonzi v. Miller, Case No. 2020-Ohio-3739. In the Thonen cases, the Court will address whether the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. 5301.56) supersedes and controls over the Ohio Marketable Title Act (R.C. 5301.47, et seq.) as to the termination of severed oil and gas interests. In Miller, the Court will address several issues related to the application of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. 5301.56), including the level of due diligence required before serving a notice of abandonment by publication. Both cases are on pause for now: The Court held the Thonen cases until it decides West v. Bode, Case No. 2019-1494, and Miller until it decides Gerrity v. Chervenak, Case No. 2019-1123.
This post provides an important update to our January 2018 Client Alert regarding U.S. EPA’s ‘Once In, Always In’ policy for major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). On October 1, 2020, U.S. EPA issued a final rule amending the general provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A.
The final rule implements the plain language reading for the definitions of “major source” and “area source” under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Notably, the final rule also amends the NESHAP applicability provision in 40 CFR 63.1 by adding a new paragraph – (c)(6) – that specifies that a major source can be reclassified as an area source at any time upon limiting its potential to emit HAP to below the major source threshold of 10 tons/year for any single HAP and 25 tons/year of any combination of HAP. Once the reclassification becomes effective, the source is subject to any applicable area source NESHAP requirements in 40 CFR Part 63. U.S. EPA’s final rule effectively codifies a January 25, 2018 guidance document reversing the Agency’s long-standing controversial policy that any facility subject to major source NESHAP requirements would always remain subject to those requirements, even if the facility’s processes changed or controls were implemented that eliminated or permanently reduced that facility’s potential to emit HAP.
Facilities in a position to take advantage of reclassification under U.S EPA’s final rule should be mindful of the new notification procedures and record keeping and reporting requirements under the final rule. Please contact us with any questions or for assistance regarding your facility’s permitting and emission requirements.
A pre-publication version of the final rule is available here. The final rule will become effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
On September 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that fact issues prevented a lower court from granting summary judgment to the State of Ohio on a takings claim involving the indefinite suspension of a Trumbull County injection well. See State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz, 2020-Ohio-4509.
Read more about this decision after the break.
This post provides important updates to our August 17, 2020 post regarding U.S. EPA’s amendments to the 2012 and 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry (40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOO and 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOOa).
First, U.S. EPA published the final amendments in the Final Register on September 14, 2020. The amendments to the NSPS became effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Next, on the same day that U.S. EPA published the amendments to the NSPS in the Federal Register, several environmental groups filed a Petition for Review in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging U.S. EPA’s amendments. On September 15, 2020, the Petitioners filed an emergency motion for stay and vacatur of U.S. EPA’s amendments. Today, the D.C. Circuit issued an Order that U.S. EPA’s amendments to the NSPS be administratively stayed pending further review and order by the Court regarding Petitioner’s emergency motion for stay and vacatur of the amendments. The Court also ordered that any additional motions to stay in the consolidated cases be filed by September 18, 2020, with EPA’s response to the motion(s) to stay due on September 28, 2020, and any replies be submitted by October 5, 2020.
We will continue to track this case and provide updates on new developments.
This post updates an earlier post outlining the USEPA’s and Ohio EPA’s COVID-19 enforcement policies.
USEPA’s general policy to not seek penalties for compliance monitoring and reporting violations ended this week on August 31, 2020. Violations that occur on and after September 1 are no longer protected by the “enforcement discretion” of the COVID-19 policy. However, the policy reserves the USEPA’s right to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis for noncompliance caused by COVID-19 going forward as long as the entity made a “reasonable attempt to comply with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or other agencies” to control the spread of COVID-19.
Ohio EPA’s policy, which required regulated entities to apply for regulatory flexibility and “alternative approaches to maintaining compliance,” also ended on August 31, 2020 when the Agency stopped considering new requests for flexibility. Requests submitted prior to August 31, 2020 will still be considered by the Agency.
Do not hesitate to reach out to a Vorys environmental attorney with any questions regarding the applicability of either policy to noncompliance instances prior to, or after, August 31, 2020.
In Fonzi, the Court will consider issues over the extent of a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable diligence in notifying mineral owners of an abandonment under the ODMA, the mineral owner’s burden in challenging the sufficiency of that notice, and the parties’ rights when a landowner files a quiet title asserting that no savings events occurred within the twenty-year period preceding the abandonment notice.
Read the full text of the five propositions of law that the Court accepted below the break.