February 18, 2020

Treasury Issues Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States Review Rules

Emerging Technologies Alert

(by Justine Kasznica and Boyd Stephenson)

Technology companies seeking foreign investment should be aware of recently effective changes to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) notification process for investments by foreign entities.  While these changes generally mirror CFIUS’ recently terminated pilot project, differences between the programs could determine whether a US business needs to file with CFIUS for pre-foreign investment review.  The following client alert explains the program changes in greater depth.

On January 17, 2020, the Treasury Department’s Office of Investment Security (Treasury) released two final rules requiring some foreign entities acquiring an interest in a US business with a national security nexus (Transaction Rule)[1] or real estate near air or sea ports or near US military installations (Real Estate Rule or, collectively, Rules)[2] to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) before the transaction can be completed.  The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) required Treasury to expand the Transaction Rule—which previously required CFIUS review over only foreign investments that could result in foreign control of a US business—to include non-passive but non-controlling investments and to adopt the Real Estate Rule.[3]

The Treasury implemented a version of the Transaction Rule under a 2018 interim final rule and through a pilot program requiring mandatory declarations of certain transactions involving investments by foreign entities in US businesses beginning November 10, 2018.[4]  On September 24, 2019, the Treasury issued notices of proposed rulemaking for the Transaction Rule[5] and the Real Estate Rule.[6]  The Transaction Rule replaced the pilot program beginning February 13, 2020.  …

February 18, 2020

Pennsylvania DEP Unveils Initial Draft of Carbon Dioxide Trading Rule to Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee

Environmental Alert

(by Kevin Garber, Jean Mosites and Varun Shekhar)

On February 13, 2020, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection presented its preliminary draft proposed rulemaking to establish a carbon dioxide budget trading program to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC).  The proposed trading program would apply to fossil fuel-fired electricity generators of greater than 25 MW in Pennsylvania.  The draft proposal reflects a first look at Pennsylvania DEP’s vision for a cap-and-trade program as directed by Governor Tom Wolf’s October 3, 2019 Executive Order 2019-07.

The draft proposed rule, although still in development, parallels the model rule prescribed by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).  RGGI is a coalition of 10 states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic that participate in a regional CO2 cap-and-trade program for fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units that have a nameplate capacity of over 25 MWe.  Under the program, each member state has a budget of CO2 allowances, which it then allocates through set-aside programs, offsets, or periodic auctions.  The number of allowances in each state’s CO2 budget that are allocated through auction varies widely among members. Each affected source (“CO2 budget sources”) is required to hold sufficient CO2 allowances based on its CO2 emissions as determined from continuous monitoring.  Each allowance is equal to one ton of CO2 emissions.

States’ CO2 budgets, and in turn, available allowances, periodically reduce over time.  This requires each CO2 budget source to either reduce CO2 emissions as measured by continuous monitoring, or obtain extra CO2 allowances to cover its emissions in excess of its allowance account.  Under RGGI, auctions to obtain allowances generally occur quarterly, and may be open to qualified participants other than CO2 budget sources.  …

February 14, 2020

PHMSA Issues Final Rule for Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities

Pipeline Safety Alert 

(by James Curry, Keith Coyle and Brianne Kurdock)

On February 12, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or Agency) released a final rule establishing new safety standards and reporting requirements for underground natural gas storage (UNGS) facilities (the Final Rule).  The Final Rule modifies regulations that PHMSA previously established in an interim final rule (IFR) to address a congressional mandate in the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (PIPES Act).

The Final Rule follows the approach taken in the IFR by incorporating the provisions in two industry safety standards for UNGS facilities by reference but eliminates the requirement to treat the permissive elements of those standards as mandatory.  The Final Rule also makes other changes to the IFR, many of which respond to issues raised in public comments, a petition for reconsideration filed by several industry trade organizations, and a petition for judicial review filed by the State of Texas in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.  Additional information about the Final Rule, which takes effect on March 13, 2020, is provided below.

Revised Approach to Non-Mandatory Provisions of API RP 1170 and API RP 1171

The Final Rule eliminates what was arguably the most controversial aspect of the IFR, i.e. the requirement to treat the permissive elements of two industry standards as mandatory.  In the 2016 IFR, PHMSA incorporated API Recommended Practice 1170 Design and Operation of Solution-mined Salt Caverns Used for Natural Gas Storage (RP 1170) and Recommended Practice 1171 Functional Integrity of Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Aquifer Reservoirs (RP 1171 or RPs, collectively) by reference.  …

February 13, 2020

Court Provides Clarity on the Applicable Scope of Review in Land Use Appeals

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Alyssa Golfieri)

Zoning hearing boards have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final adjudications on nine discrete matters, ranging from substantive challenges to the validity of land use ordinances, to appeals from determinations of a zoning officer, to applications for variances and special exceptions from the terms of zoning and floodplain ordinances. See Section 909.1(a) of the MPC, 53 P.S. Section 10909.1(a). If a party to a land use matter is unhappy with a zoning hearing board’s final adjudication, he has 30 days to appeal the decision to the trial court. See Section 1002-A of the MPC, 53 P.S. Section 11002-A.

When rendering final adjudications, zoning hearing boards sit as fact finders. This means zoning hearing boards are the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight afforded evidence. See Tri-County Landfill v. Pine Township Zoning Hearing Board, 83 A.3d 488, 518 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). As such, when a zoning hearing board’s decision is appealed to the trial court, the trial court should not, with one exception addressed below, engage in fact-finding or disturb the board’s credibility determinations. See Section 1005-A of the MPC, 53 P.S. Section 11005-A; see also Manayunk Neighborhood Council, 815 A.2d at 652 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). Rather, the trial court must uphold a zoning hearing board’s determination so long as the board did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion—an abuse of discretion occurs only when a zoning hearing board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence, which Pennsylvania courts have defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Berman v. Manchester Township Zoning Hearing Board, 540 A.2d 8, 9 (Pa. …

February 12, 2020

Christian Farmakis Featured Speaker at Dealmakers Conference

Law firm Babst Calland will participate at the 2020 Smart Business Dealmakers Conference in Pittsburgh, Pa. on March 5 at Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh Downtown.

The conference will feature middle-market CEOs, top private equity and venture capital firms, major lenders and leading service providers participating in sessions that cover the breadth of the merger and acquisition landscape addressing such topics as buying a business, selling a business, financing a deal, liquidity events, merging operations, alternative investing and more.

Attorney Christian A. Farmakis will join a group of recognized entrepreneurs and business experts in discussing Transaction Audits: How to prepare your company for any type of deal.

For more information about the Dealmakers conference, or to register to attend, visit: https://www.smartbusinessdealmakers.com/pittsburgh//event/

February 11, 2020

PHMSA Proposes New Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards for Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

Pipeline Safety Alert 

(by James Curry, Keith Coyle and Brianne Kurdock)

On February 6, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register containing new valve installation and minimum rupture detection standards for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.  The NPRM would require the installation of automatic shutoff valves (ASV), remote-control valves (RCV), or equivalent technology, on certain gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines.  The NPRM also contains proposed requirements for rupture detection and mitigation, including provisions for improving emergency response and conducting failure investigations and analyses.  Public comments must be filed in response to the NPRM on or before April 6, 2020.  Additional background information and a brief summary of PHMSA’s proposals are provided below.

Why Did PHMSA Issue the NPRM?

In 2010, a pair of significant pipeline incidents occurred in Marshall, Michigan, and San Bruno, California.  The resulting NTSB investigations led to the issuance of safety recommendations relating to the use of ASVs and RCVs and other measures to improve rupture detection and response.  Also, in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Act), Congress added mandates to the Pipeline Safety Act directing PHMSA to conduct studies and, if appropriate, establish regulations to address the concerns identified in NTSB’s safety recommendations.  In the years following the 2011 Act, PHMSA commissioned the studies required by the congressional mandates and received separate recommendations from GAO on the need to improve pipeline incident response.  PHMSA also issued two ANPRMs after the 2010 pipeline incidents asking for public comment on the need to amend the pipeline safety regulations for valve installation and rupture detection.  …

February 10, 2020

Revised DEP policy would expand the scope of projects requiring PHMC review

The PIOGA Press

(by Jean Mosites, Hannah Baldwin and Casey Snyder)

On December 28, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection published notice of a substantive revision to the Policy for Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) and DEP Coordination During Permit Application Review and Evaluation of Historic Resources (012-0700-001). The draft policy, if finalized, would replace Implementation of the Pennsylvania State History Code: Policy and Procedures for Applicants for DEP Permits and Plan Approvals, finalized in 2002 and amended in 2006, and establishes the framework DEP would implement for its plan approvals and permit application reviews to comply with Pennsylvania’s History Code, 37 Pa. C.S. §§ 101 et seq.

The History Code and its application to oil and gas operations

Under Section 507 of the History Code, Common-wealth agencies must notify PHMC before undertaking any Commonwealth or Commonwealth-assisted permitted or contracted project that affects or may affect archaeological sites and provide PHMC with information concerning the project or activity. DEP requires applicants to submit the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Project Review Form to PHMC if their project potentially affects an archaeological site. After receiving the form from the applicant, PHMC must then determine whether the project may adversely affect an archaeological site.

Oil and gas operations potentially fall within the History Code’s consultation and survey requirements as “Commonwealth-assisted permitted projects.” Activities that require state permits, such as construction of well pads, pipelines, compressor stations and underground injection control wells, could have the potential to affect historic resources that come within the purview of the PHMC coordination requirements in the History Code.

Neither the History Code nor the draft policy mandates outcomes for known or discovered historic resources identified during the review process or during a survey or field investigation. …

February 7, 2020

New WOTUS definition finalized, new challenges expected

The PIOGA Press

(by Lisa Bruderly and Kevin Garber)

On January 23, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers pre-published the final Navigable Waters Protection (NWP) Rule, which (yet again) redefines the scope of waters regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). In particular, the final NWP Rule revises the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) in 12 federal regulations and will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Once effective, the NWP Rule will almost certainly be challenged in the courts by NGOs and other interested parties. These challenges could result in the courts staying the NWP Rule in some, or all, states while the lawsuits are litigated.

The NWP Rule is the final step in fulfilling the Trump administration’s promise to repeal and replace the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR), which many believe improperly expanded the scope of waters regulated under the CWA. Effective December 23, 2019, EPA and the Corps repealed the CWR and restored the WOTUS definition that existed before 2015. Prior to the repeal, the pre2015 rule’s WOTUS definition applied in approximately half of the states, while the CWR’s WOTUS definition applied in the remainder (including Pennsylvania), resulting in certain states having more federally regulated waters than other states.

The stated intent of the NWP Rule is to provide “clarity, predictability and consistency” regarding CWA jurisdiction. Consistent with President Trump’s February 28, 2017, Executive Order, the NWP Rule heavily reflects and relies upon Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of the pre-2015 rule’s definition of WOTUS, as expressed in his plurality opinion in the seminal case, Rapanos v. …

February 6, 2020

DOL Issues First Meaningful Revision to Joint Employer Rule in Decades

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Stephen Antonelli and Andrew DeGory)

On Jan. 16, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released a final rule updating its interpretation of “joint employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The update represents the first “meaningful revision” of its interpretation, codified at 29 CFR Part 791, since the FLSA’s inception in 1958. The final rule takes effect on March 16 and carries meaningful significance for companies that rely on temporary staffing and subcontractors and franchise owners. It could also allow companies to exert more influence over temporary workers without being considered a “joint employer.” While not binding on the federal courts, the final rule will serve as the DOL’s official interpretation moving forward and guide its enforcement of this issue under the FLSA.

The FLSA has always recognized that an employee can have two or more employers who are jointly and severally liable for the wages of its workers. The act requires covered employers to pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage for every hour worked and overtime for every hour worked over 40 in a workweek. The FLSA defines the term “employer” to “include any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.”

Part 791 recognizes two scenarios where an employee may have joint employers. In the first scenario, and most commonly, an employee performs work for an employer while another person or entity “simultaneously benefits” from that work. Thus, the employee only works one “set” of hours in a given week. In the second scenario, “one employer employs an employee for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same
employee for a separate set of hours in a workweek.”

The DOL’s final rule primarily addresses the first scenario and adopts a four-factor balancing test derived from the U.S. …

February 5, 2020

Elizabeth A. Dupuis named to Pennsylvania Business Central’s “Top 100 People”

Pennsylvania Business Central 

Elizabeth A. Dupuis has been named to this year’s Pennsylvania Business Central’s “Top 100 People” list and profiled in its Signature Top 100 issue. Nominations were taken throughout the publication’s 24-county coverage area, and the final honorees were selected by a special selection committee for their professional and community contributions.

Betsy Dupuis has practiced law in Central Pennsylvania since 1997, most recently as Managing Shareholder at law firm Babst Calland’s State College office. Her practice focuses on real estate transactions, business planning and formation, commercial and contract litigation, estate planning and administration. She is also a licensed title agent in Pennsylvania and conducts commercial real estate closings through MidState Closing Company, a Babst Calland affiliate.

Among other honors, she is a graduate of Leadership Centre County and was recognized by LCC with the Community Leadership Association’s Distinguished Leader Award. She is the incoming chair for the National Association of Home Builders Legal Action Committee. She presently serves on the boards of the Centre County Chamber of Business and Industry (CBICC), the Central Pennsylvania Risk Management Association, and the Pennsylvania Builders Association. She is a past Chair of the Centre County United Way and the Palmer Museum of Art Gala.

She was recently re-appointed for a second four-year term as Solicitor for Centre County.

Top 100 People
The vibrant economic and social life of central Pennsylvania is powered by people. When goods or services are delivered in an efficient and timely manner, expertise and knowledge brought to bear on a problem, or necessary care provided, it’s not just the businesses and the institutions – but the people behind them that get the job done. We all know that powerhouse individual – the person with the vision, dedication and drive to not only complete the task, but to envision, expand and excel. …

January 31, 2020

Artificial Intelligence Is Transforming the Legal Industry

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Christian Farmakis)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is adding efficiencies and transforming businesses everywhere, and legal practices are no exception.

General counsels who are hiring lawyers need to understand that this technology is available now, so they can make sure their lawyers are leveraging the latest technology tools. AI can increase speed, increase efficiency and lower costs for clients—if the law firm has the right tools, but more importantly knows how to use those tools.

The following are some of the common questions about advancement of AI technology in the legal space.

•  How is AI technology disrupting the legal industry?

AI is a term generally used to describe computers performing tasks normally viewed as requiring human intellect.

AI legal technology won’t replace lawyers, but these tools will drastically change the way lawyers provide services for their clients. While estimates vary, 23% to 35% of a lawyer’s job could be automated. As a result, lawyers will need to be more strategic and supervisorial, able to act as project managers and supervise the information being fed into systems, and knowledgeable about the assumptions underlying the machine learning algorithms.

So far, projects that classify data have been impacted the most, allowing projects such as e-discovery, due diligence, document management and research to be done faster and more efficiently.

Law firms can already pass these savings on to clients, but this is only the beginning of the transformation. Early law firm adopters are implementing artificial intelligence, machine learning and predictive analytics to legal contract review and document management, enhancing efficiency, intelligence and quality while reducing costs for clients.

For example, with the addition of artificial intelligence software, Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir can now deploy highly trained machine learning algorithms in its due diligence process resulting in faster, more intelligent contract or document review for clients. …

January 31, 2020

New WOTUS Definition Finalized – New Challenges Expected

Environmental Alert

(by Lisa Bruderly)

On January 23, 2020, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pre-published the final Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWP Rule), which (yet again) redefines the scope of waters that are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  In particular, the final NWP Rule revises the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) in 12 federal regulations and will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once effective, the NWP Rule will almost certainly be challenged in the courts by NGOs and other interested parties. These challenges could result in the courts staying the NWP Rule in some, or all, states while the lawsuits are litigated.

The NWP Rule is the final step in fulfilling the Trump administration’s promise to repeal and replace the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR), which many believe improperly expanded the scope of waters regulated under the CWA. Effective December 23, 2019, EPA and the Corps repealed the CWR and restored the WOTUS definition that existed prior to 2015 (Pre-2015 Rule). Prior to the repeal, the Pre-2015 Rule’s WOTUS definition applied in approximately half of the states, while the CWR’s WOTUS definition applied in the remainder (including Pennsylvania), resulting in certain states having more federally regulated waters than other states.

The stated intent of the NWP Rule is to provide “clarity, predictability and consistency” regarding CWA jurisdiction. Consistent with the President’s February 28, 2017 Executive Order, the NWP Rule heavily reflects and relies upon Justice Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of the Pre-2015 Rule’s definition of WOTUS, as expressed in his plurality opinion in the seminal case, Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. …

January 30, 2020

Council on Environmental Quality Proposes Amendments to NEPA Regulations

The Legal Intelligencer 

(by Ben Clapp, Varun Shekhar, Casey Snyder and Brianne Kurdock)

If a newly proposed rulemaking is finalized, the process by which federal agencies are required to analyze the environmental impacts caused by their actions could be comprehensively updated for the first time in over four decades. On Jan. 10, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to update its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed revisions seek to narrow both the scope of projects that must be reviewed under NEPA, as well as the nature and extent of such review. These changes are intended to reduce the time, cost and workload required to comply with NEPA, and could also make it more difficult for opponents of agency actions that seek to block those actions in court based on alleged NEPA violations.

Background of NEPA

NEPA, enacted in 1970, is a procedural law; it does not mandate substantive environmental outcomes. The purpose of NEPA is to promote accountability and transparency in federal decisions to ensure that environmental concerns are integrated into federal decision-making. The CEQ, a division of the Executive Office of the President, is charged with overseeing implementation of NEPA  CEQ first promulgated regulations implementing NEPA in 1978.

NEPA applies to major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, including those undertaken by nonfederal entities that receive federal funding or require federal permitting approvals. Federal agencies have three primary means of complying with NEPA. First, federal actions that have previously been determined to involve no significant impacts to the environment may receive a categorical exclusion (CE) from a more in-depth and time-consuming, review. …

January 24, 2020

Trucking regulators look to alleviate cost increases, while keeping safety first

Smart Business

(by Jayne Gest with Boyd Stephenson)

The trucking industry is still adjusting to the final transition to electronic logging devices (ELDs). Some relief may be on the horizon, however, as federal regulators consider whether to relax the hours of service requirements.

“Every solution has unintended consequences, and that is exactly what we are seeing now,” says Boyd A. Stephenson, associate at Babst Calland. “The supply chain is like a balloon, where everything is interconnected. You push on one part and another piece will pop out.”

Paper logbooks are left to the discretion of the driver, while ELDs record driving time automatically to ensure driving hours are strictly followed. The idea is to make the roads safer. Effective now, strict enforcement of the ELD mandate applies to all drivers, unless they operate under the short-haul rule exemption.

The trucking industry is dealing with rising transportation costs and an overall driver shortage in an economic expansion. Freight volumes also grew more slowly in 2019, with trade conflicts and tariff increases taking a toll on growth.

An American Transportation Research Institute survey found that the top industry concerns for 2019 were driver shortages, hours of service, driver compensation and detention or delays at customer facilities. These obstacles increase trucking costs, which get passed on to shippers that need their goods transported.

Smart Business spoke with Stephenson about hours of service rules and other industry changes that businesses should be aware of in 2020.

Why did the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) feel a need to change the hours of service rules?

With ELDs in place, drivers cannot adjust their logs. Difficulties like wait time while cargo is loaded or unloaded, weather and traffic have highlighted the need to adjust the hours of service and let drivers spend more time on the road. …

January 22, 2020

The Council on Environmental Quality Proposes to Amend NEPA Regulations

Environmental Alert

(by Ben Clapp, Varun Shekhar, Casey J. Snyder and Brianne K. Kurdock)

On January 10, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to revise regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  These revisions could significantly affect projects in several industries, including infrastructure development, that require approval by federal agencies.

NEPA is a procedural statute that requires federal agencies to evaluate environmental impacts associated with proposed major actions.  Major actions are actions subject to federal control and responsibility with potential significant effects.  CEQ’s regulations that implement NEPA aim to ensure that environmental effects from such actions are considered before they are undertaken.  These regulations have never been comprehensively revised since they were promulgated in 1978, despite statutory changes that provided for a more streamlined NEPA review of certain infrastructural projects.  The Trump administration first signaled its intent to update the NEPA regulations in 2017, when it issued an Executive Order directing CEQ to review the environmental review process to enhance its efficiency, specifically for major infrastructure projects.  In June 2018, CEQ published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments on potential revisions to the NEPA regulations.  CEQ considered those comments when developing the current proposed rule.

Summary of CEQ’s Proposed Changes

CEQ has proposed extensive revisions to its regulations in an effort to create a more efficient and timely NEPA review process.  The proposed changes would impact several fundamental aspects of the NEPA process, such as the application and scope of NEPA review, analysis of alternatives, and timing requirements.  Key proposed changes include:

  • Revision of the term “effects.”  This revision would alter the scope of an agency’s effects analysis under NEPA. 

    • …

Top