Cement, Concrete Partners Urge Participation in Fly-In

NACA partners encourages members and affiliates to participate in the annual Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC) Fly-In, May 8-9 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, D.C.

The event features a legislative briefing (2:30 to 5:30), followed by a Capitol Hill Reception (at 6:00 p.m.) the first day. The second day activities include a breakfast program, followed by individually-arranged meetings with U.S. Senators and Representatives.

The event provides the concrete and cement industries, as well as other organizations represented by the Transportation Construction Coalition, with the opportunity to discuss key issues of common interest and importance. The registration fee for the two-day program is $175; lower rates apply to individual sessions.

Click here to download a program.

Contact David Hubbard, Robert Sullivan, or Jerry Voigt.

Employee Free Choice Act Introduced in the Senate

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) Introduced last Friday the "Employee Free Choice Act of 2007," (S. 1041), organized labor's top legislative priority.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the same the same "card-check" legislation on March 1 by a margin of 241-185.

The legislation in the Senate has 47 cosponsors but its passage is an open question.

Rival camps are taking advantage of the recess to educate legislators on the card-check bill with manufacturing groups setting up in-state meetings between their members and senators.

Organized labor is focusing its efforts on solidifying Democratic support for S. 1041 and is reaching out to about a dozen GOP senators who have previously sided with labor on various issues.

The big hurdle for the Democratic leadership is whether they can muster the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and end a likely Republican filibuster. In any event, it is doubtful that the Senate (as in the House) has the two-thirds majority votes required to overturn a promised White House veto.

Contact Robert Sullivan or David Hubbard.

Supreme Court Rules on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In its first decision addressing legal issues surrounding global warming, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the court sided with 11 states and 13 environmental groups that argued the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions (GHG), including carbon dioxide, from cars and trucks and, moreover, that the Agency must act on that authority.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held:
..... (1) that the petitioners have standing to bring their claims (based primarily on rise in sea level) and ..... (2) that EPA incorrectly concluded the Clean Air Act does not authorize it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens rejected EPA's position that the Clean Air Act does not grant it the authority to issue mandatory regulations addressing climate change.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas each joined in two dissents, one written by Roberts and one by Scalia.

The rulings were well received by two key Democratic lawmakers. The House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Called it "a landmark decision."

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Work Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D. Calif.) called it "a banner day for the environment, as the Supreme Court decided two cases squarely on the side of protecting the environment and public health." Boxer stated she plans to call the EPA before the committee "later this month to ask them how they plan to use their authority under the Clean Air Act to begin to address the challenge of global warming."

At least one powerful Democrat, U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell, Jr. (D-Mich.), questioned the EPA ruling, even as he pushed for Congress to address the climate change issue.

Contact Deidra Ciriello.

Ruling Overturned by Supreme Court

On the same day as the climate change decision, the Supreme Court overturned a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on new source review (NSR) that had been the basis for a proposed rulemaking by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .

The unanimous ruling foils EPA's plans to reform the NSR program.

In 2005, the Fourth Circuit ruled that EPA was using the wrong test in an NSR enforcement case against Duke Energy, holding that since the utility had not increased their hourly emission rate, there was no NSR violation. EPA then proposed a rule to codify the hourly emission test for utilities that was suggested by the Fourth Circuit.

Despite the Supreme Court's vacateur (act of vacating a legal award or decision) of the Duke Energy decision, EPA announced plans to proceed with the hourly emission rulemaking.

The Agency contended the Supremes ruled on the preexisting regulations and enforcement interpretations, but that a new rule would still be valid.

Contact Tom Carter.

Senator to Block Nominee to Head Army Corps of Engineers

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) Placed a procedural hold on the nomination of Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp to head the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Senator was not questioning Van Antwerp's qualifications, but rather expressing her desire for a more in-depth discussion regarding the rebuilding of Louisiana after the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina.

She stated in a letter that she needed to determine if Van Antwerp will be "the partner we need for the recovery and protection of our region, or will he be the agent of a failed status quo."

Landrieu notified U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about the hold in a letter dated March 29, but didn't disclose her move publicly until this week.

The Senate Armed Services Committee cleared Van Antwerp's nomination on March 15, but Landrieu's hold will delay action by the full Senate, which is in recess until April 10.

If confirmed as the Corps' commander, Van Antwerp would succeed Lt. General Carl Strock, who, citing personal reasons, announced his resignation last August.

Contact John Sullivan.

Agency Publishes Final Penalty Rule

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) finalized a rulemaking hastily proposed last summer in the wake of a series of coal mining accidents.

The rulemaking, which was compelled by Congress in the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006, provides a structure and process for calculating penalties for mine safety violations.

The criteria for penalty levels are: size of business, history of previous violations, negligence, gravity, rapidity of compliance, and impact of the penalty on the operators' business viability.

The rule also increases the maximum penalties for flagrant and repeated violators.

Contact Tom Carter.

Court Hears Challenge to Hazardous Communications Rule


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently heard a challenge to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's (OSHA) hazard communication standard.

Industry groups, including the Portland Cement Association, have challenged the so called HazCom rule, and specifically, the incorporation by reference of non-consensus standards developed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).

The plaintiffs contend that incorporation by reference of these standards constitutes a de facto rulemaking each time that ACGIH revises its standards.

A decision is expected in the next several months.

Contact Tom Carter.

Questions about this newsletter? For more information or to unsubscribe, send an e-mail to info@washingtonbriefing.com.