Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Automotive News 

By: Eric Kulisch

WASHINGTON — From a regulatory standpoint, September has been a good month so far for U.S. automakers and tech companies racing to develop autonomous vehicles.

The House of Representatives passed the SELF DRIVE Act, the Senate Commerce Committee floated a draft bill that soon will become an official proposal, and the Department of Transportation issued revised industry guidance on how the federal government will treat safety compliance in the brave new world of driverless cars.

The three efforts reflect the politically conservative tendencies of the Trump administration and Congress in projecting a hands-off approach to establishing a legal and regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles, and they promise to deliver much of the regulatory certainty and consistency sought by the industry.

Safety groups complain that the proposals give the industry too much leeway to ignore risks, but some experts say the government approach recognizes that private-sector competition will drive safety improvements faster than regulators who might overlook potential solutions when prescribing rules.

“You’re seeing a light regulatory touch to encourage innovation and prevent the government from picking winners and losers,” said Tim Goodman, a transportation safety attorney at Babst Calland. He also was assistant chief counsel for enforcement at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration until April 2016.

“Pursuing a market-based approach allows companies to take advantage of efficiencies” and promote safety, he added.

For the full article, click here.

American College of Environmental Lawyers

By: Dean A. Calland  

David Van Slyke recently posted an excellent discussion about the slow progress of EPA’s efforts to implement its RCRA 2020 initiative goals under the Government Performance Results Act and looming budget cuts that would slow the pace even more. However, a trend appears to be emerging that may help counter this RCRA corrective inaction.

The current statistics on remedial progress at RCRA corrective action sites are disappointing.  EPA estimates that the average RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) takes 10 years, with some taking up to 19 years. The RFI process usually constitutes up to 80 percent of the time in a given cleanup, and remedy selections are taking an average of 6 years, and may take as long as 8 years, according to information from Region 3, Region 7 and RCRAInfo analysis. RCRA Facilities Investigation Remedy Selection Track: A Toolbox for Corrective Action.  However, we have witnessed a positive trend over the past several years that may assist site remediators in recovering some of the time lost due to the continued reduction in resources for this program.

There appears to be an emerging willingness by several EPA regions and delegated states to incorporate RCRA FIRST principles into corrective action consent orders that can save significant time and money compared with the traditional approach.  RCRA FIRST is the acronym for “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facilities Investigation Remedy Selection Track.”  As Barnes Johnson, Director of the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery recently wrote, RCRA FIRST was designed to use increases in efficiency and effectiveness to “reduce the planning time [of RCRA corrective action cleanups] by as much as 50-75%, resulting in faster cleanup decisions and facilitating the redevelopment of corrective action facilities.”  RCRA FIRST was an effort to address the root causes of delay such as unclear or non-specific investigation or cleanup objectives and the lack of specific processes to elevate differences among stakeholders early in the project.  …

PA Business Central 

A recent report indicates that the natural gas industry should expect continued economic gains despite remaining disapproval from local community and regulatory organizations.

Written by multiple energy and natural resource attorneys from law firm Babst Calland, the report is entitled “Upstream, Midstream and Downstream: Resurgence of the Appalachian Shale Industry; Legal and Regulatory Perspective for Producers and Midstream Operators” and focuses “on issues, challenges, opportunities and recent developments in the Appalachian Basin and beyond relevant to producers and operators,” according to a press release from the firm.

The report is split up into six sections: Business issues, the changing regulatory landscape, pipeline safety legislative and regulatory developments, litigation trends, challenges and debate spawned by local laws and regulations and downstream opportunities.

“This year’s Babst Calland Report is published at an exciting time for energy in the northeastern United States. The Appalachian Basin has re-emerged to become a leading producer, prices have stabilized, pipeline projects are coming online, and the future of downstream markets is beginning to come into view. Yet, dynamism remains a big part of the story with significant acreage and assets changing hands, new entrants to the upstream and midstream markets, the evolution of energy markets and fuel mixes, and the seemingly never-ending new requirements from the federal, state and local levels of government,” said Kathryn Z. Klaber, The Klaber Group, in her preface to the report.

Production and prices

Although natural gas producers saw record low prices in 2016, the end of the year indicated a positive trend upwards that has continued into 2017. …

 The report predicts that “modest price stability may be achieved given the prospect of both increased pipeline capacity out of producing regions like Appalachia, as well as some national export capacity.

The PIOGA Press

Federal agencies tasked with reviewing energy projects will likely take a harder look at climate change following a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a 2-1 ruling issued August 22, a D.C. Circuit panel vacated a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve a major interstate pipeline project, holding that FERC failed to adequately consider the greenhouse gas emissions that will result from burning the natural gas being carried by the pipelines. See Sierra Club v. FERC, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1329. The court faulted FERC’s project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in a decision that has the potential to delay pipeline development across the country.

What NEPA requires

As the first major environmental law in the United States, NEPA established a broad national framework for protecting the environment. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental and related social and economic impacts of proposed actions prior to making decisions. It requires agencies to follow certain procedures, gather public input and take a “hard look” at various factors, but it does not require a particular outcome. NEPA can apply to a wide range of federal actions, including but not limited to permit approvals. Private companies frequently become involved in the NEPA process when they need a permit issued by a federal agency, such as FERC or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Depending on the circumstances of a project, the reviewing agency may be required to prepare a decision document known as an environmental impact statement (EIS). NEPA requires preparation of an EIS for each “major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” See 42 U.S.C. …

The American Oil & Gas Reporter

HARRISBURG, PA.–The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF) v. Commonwealth has upended a longstanding interpretation of an environmental provision in the state’s constitution, but oil and gas representatives indicate no one is certain yet of the implications of the June 20 ruling, particularly regarding development of privately-held oil and gas resources.

The Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association reports that another pending Supreme Court case, Gorsline v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfield Township, ultimately may give a clearer sense of the court’s intentions.

In the meantime, though, the new construal of the constitution already is being employed to challenge oil and gas activity, PIOGA warns.

ERA Interpretation

At issue in the PEDF case was Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Lease Fund, which holds all rents and royalties from oil and gas leases on state-owned land. By law, the fund is to be used by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources exclusively for conservation, recreation, dams or flood control, Babst Calland attorneys Kevin Garber and Blaine Lucas explain in PIOGA’s newsletter. Beginning in 2009 as part of the state budget process, the Pennsylvania General Assembly made changes to Sections 1602-E and 1603-E of the Pennsylvania Fiscal Code, transferring control over royalties from oil and gas leases from DCNR to the legislature and requiring that there could be no expenditures of royalties from the lease fund unless the general assembly transferred that money to the general fund.

In 2012, the attorneys recount, PEDF filed a challenge in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to § 1602-E and 1603-E and the appropriation of money from the leases, among other things. The basis of the legal action was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s December 2013 plurality opinion in Robinson Township v. …

The Legal Intelligencer 

On June 27, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate, 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 412 (Pa Commw. Ct. 2017), holding that municipal subdivision and land development ordinances (SALDO) can be enforced through private causes of action. The case was a matter of first impression under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq., (MPC), the state law establishing the framework for zoning and land use development regulations in Pennsylvania.

In Smith v. Ivy Lee, Ivy Lee Real Estate owned real property in Taylor Township. In 2015, Ivy Lee commenced construction activities on its property to convert an existing dwelling into a restaurant. The township does not have a zoning ordinance, but had adopted a SALDO pursuant to the MPC. The township concluded that Ivy Lee’s proposed project did not rise to the level of a “land development” under its SALDO. This decision is important because a “land development” requires submittal of a land development plan. That plan, and supporting application material, must comply with specific standards and criteria under the SALDO and undergo formal review and approval at various public meetings.

Believing Ivy Lee’s project did trigger the SALDO as a land development, the adjacent property owners (the Smiths) filed a private enforcement action against Ivy Lee in the form of a petition for permanent injunction. In the petition, the Smiths alleged that Ivy Lee’s construction activities constitute a land development under the SALDO, Ivy Lee is required to submit a land development plan to the township for review and approval, Ivy Lee’s plan, as-is, does not conform to the requirements of the SALDO, and the Smiths are authorized by Section 617 of the MPC to file a private action to enforce the SALDO. …

The Legal Intelligencer

The Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law, 49 P.S. Section 1101 et seq. (the Lien Law), provides contractors a powerful legal hammer for the recovery of payment owed for work performed on a construction project; they can impose a lien against the property on which their work was performed, clouding the owner’s title, until payment is received. In December 2016, as a result of last year’s Act 142 (the act) amendments to the Lien Law, the Department of General Services launched the online State Construction Notices Directory (the directory). Prior to the creation of the directory, there was no streamlined system for owners and general contractors to track subcontractors and suppliers on a project site. Now, the directory provides greater certainty with respect to who may have lien rights, and helps owners and general contractors track work performed by subcontractors, sub-subcontractors and suppliers with whom they otherwise do not have a contractual relationship.

In light of the updates to the Lien Law, owners, general contractors, and subcontractors involved with the ever-increasing energy infrastructure projects within the commonwealth would be prudent to evaluate their business practices to ensure compliance with—and to take full advantage of their rights under–the amended Lien Law.

Applicability to Energy Infrastructure Construction Contracts

Although the case law in Pennsylvania is not completely settled, it appears from the text of the Lien Law, and the case law developed from it, that many well pad and pipeline construction projects are subject to the Lien Law. For example, a Pennsylvania appellate court held that a “well for the production of gas, oil or other volatile or mineral substance” falls within the definition of a “structure or other improvement” governed by the Lien Law, so long as the well involves “the erection or construction of a permanent improvement.” …

PITTSBURGH, PA, August 17, 2017 – Babst Calland is pleased to announce that five attorneys were selected as 2018 Best Lawyers® “Lawyers of the Year”. Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the “Lawyer of the Year,” making this accolade particularly significant.

The 2018 “Lawyers of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa. and Charleston, W.Va. include:

Kevin J. Garber, Best Lawyers 2018 Environmental Law “Lawyer of the Year”

Blaine A. Lucas, Best Lawyers 2018 Land Use and Zoning Law “Lawyer of the Year”

Joseph K. Reinhart, Best Lawyers 2018 Energy Law “Lawyer of the Year”

John A. McCreary, Best Lawyers 2018 Labor Law – Management “Lawyer of the Year”

Timothy M. Miller was named the Best Lawyers 2018 Litigation – Environmental “Lawyer of the Year” in Charleston, W.Va.

In addition, 26 attorneys were named to the 2018 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© the most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession, in the following practice areas:

• Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law: Norman E. Gilkey
• Bet-the-Company Litigation: Mark D. Shepard, Timothy M. Miller
• Commercial Litigation: Steven F. Baicker-McKee, Mark D. Shepard, Steven B. Silverman, Timothy M. Miller, Christopher B. Power, Robert M. Stonestreet
• Construction Law: Kurt F. Fernsler, D. Matthew Jameson III, Richard J. Lolli
• Corporate Law: Frank J. Clements, Bruce F. Rudoy, Laura Stone
• Employment Law – Management: Richard J.

…

Made in PA

(by Joseph K. Reinhart)

It was only a year or so ago that the oil and gas industry had experienced what could be considered a market correction, with low commodity prices and inadequate pipeline capacity prompting energy companies to recalibrate their business plans. Even producers with strong financial reserves reduced their capital spending, which led to fewer new wells being developed. In 2016, we saw the beginning of a rebound as energy companies increased spending. Thus far in 2017, rig count has significantly expanded in the Appalachian Basin.

As the volume of natural gas and natural gas liquids produced in the Appalachian Basin grows, new downstream opportunities are being created for manufacturing industries. Shell’s 2016 announcement of plans to construct a cracker plant in Beaver County, Pa. represents just one example of the expanding market for natural gas. Many other manufacturing firms are expected to enter the region and establish businesses drawn by the energy and raw materials associated with natural gas and natural gas liquids from the Marcellus and Utica shales.

Significant changes occurring in the political landscape are expected to affect the energy industry. President Donald Trump’s administration is signaling a fundamental shift in energy policies established by former President Barack Obama. New executive orders and policies promise to lead to more pipeline development, reduced federal oversight of the oil and gas industry and increased access to oil and natural gas reserves. However, many non-governmental organizations have vowed to challenge the Trump administration’s initiatives while many state and local governments have signaled their intention to take greater measures in regulating the oil and gas industry.

Important legal developments for industry to watch include:

•Shortly after President Trump issued an executive order requiring that for every regulation passed by an administrative agency, two additional regulations must be repealed, environmental groups filed suit in federal court challenging this action. …

The PIOGA Press 

The oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania has made significant strides in recycling water in recent years. Since 2010, wastewater recycling has increased from 4.6 million barrels to more than 7.8 million barrels per year, according to a 2015 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Management presentation on water recycling and oil and gas waste.

Given fluctuating market conditions, alternatives to recycling and reuse are also necessary. These alternatives include treatment and disposal both within and outside Pennsylvania. The wastewater disposal options in Pennsylvania have been limited in recent years by a variety of state and federal factors.

DEP asked unconventional operators to voluntarily stop sending wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) in 2010. EPA finalized a new regulation in 2016 banning unconventional oil and gas operators from sending wastewater to POTWs, a practice the federal Environmental Protection Agency noted as “current” industry practice.

Historically, there have been few injection wells constructed and permitted in Pennsylvania, and some operators have sent wastewater to Ohio and other states where injection wells are more common. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA issues the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) permits in Pennsylvania, and then DEP issues a well permit under the Oil and Gas Act to construct a new well or alter an existing well for injection. The Common – wealth has not taken primacy over the federal UIC program. DEP, however, has recently revised its permitting process for the state permit needed to construct and operate UIC wells, revisions made in the midst of legal challenges in both state and federal courts.

EPA identified 15 UIC disposal wells in Pennsylvania, including plugged and abandoned wells and two wells pending permit approval, in its 2016 UIC well inventory. …

The Legal Intelligencer

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), employees may take an unpaid, job-protected leave of absence for certain family and medical reasons. Employers often find it challenging to keep track of their obligations under the FMLA. This article will help employers to avoid common problems by reviewing 10 of the top dos and don’ts.

• Do provide employees with proper notice of their rights. The FMLA applies to “covered employers.” Private companies meet this definition if they have at least 50 employees, in at least 20 weeks during the current or previous calendar year. Public agencies, elementary schools and secondary schools are also covered employers.

Covered employers are required to notify employees of their FMLA rights in two ways. First, employers should post a notice explaining the FMLA’s provisions and how to file a complaint. This posting can be electronic. Second, employers should provide written FMLA information to new employees. This information can be included in an employee handbook. Employers also may distribute this information electronically. The Department of Labor has a sample poster and notice on its website. (29 Code Fed. Regs. Section 825.300(a)).

• Don’t create new forms from scratch. The Department of Labor publishes sample FMLA forms on its website. While these forms are optional, the regulations establish a “safe harbor” for employers that choose to use them. (See 29 Code Fed. Regs. Section 825.310(d).)

• Do confirm when a rehired employee becomes eligible. FMLA leave is available to “eligible employees,” meaning employees who: work for a covered employer; have been employed for at least 12 months; have worked at least 1,250 hours within the past 12 months; and work at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees within 75 miles. …

The Legal Intelligencer

Immigration services firm Fragomen recently announced that it’s opening a new center in Pittsburgh, staffed with up to 50 employees, where it will develop or redevelop much of its software and cybersecurity technology in-house.

Fragomen’s aggressive do-it-yourself approach to technology sets it apart in the industry. But leaders at several Pennsylvania-born law firms insisted it isn’t all that different from what they’re doing themselves—even if their firms only plan to tackle so much tech innovation on their own.

“What Fragomen is attempting to do, we have it,” said David Pulice, manager of practice innovation at Reed Smith. “That’s pretty common among law firms.”

Reed Smith has created multiple apps with specific applications. Most recently, the firm launched Breach RespondeRS, which walks clients through the basic steps to take following a cyberbreach. If the problem seems complicated, the app suggests they seek legal counsel.

Duane Morris trademarked its original analytics software last year. The firm created the tool several years ago, and updates it continually to include new case data.

Blank Rome said it creates about 40 percent of its software in-house, including client-facing portals and internal applications, like a matter-tracking tool for the consumer finance group and a database for accessing information on any other platform.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius has developed more than 50 custom applications, according to chief information officer Michael Shea, and holds a competition in which teams can suggest new technical solutions to client problems. And K&L Gates has several proofs of concept in the works to apply technology such as blockchain and artificial intelligence, said CIO Neeraj Rajpal. Dechert; Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney; and Fox Rothschild also have developers working on various applications. …

The Critical Path 

Insurance coverage issues on commercial construction projects are complex. Add in the contractual requirement of providing additional insured status and problems can arise when tendering and accepting a defense.

This article discusses a unique insurance coverage issue which may arise in a multi-defendant property damage action involving additional insured requirements among contractors. It is common in a property damage action for a carrier to provide a defense and later file a declaratory judgment when evidence discerned in discovery establishes that no coverage existed. In these situations, the policy language and jurisdiction determines whether the insured owes defense costs to the carrier.

But what is the duty of an additional insured to reimburse the carrier for defense costs when it is subsequently determined that coverage did not exist? The additional insured has no written contract with the carrier. Moreover, what if the additional insured was provided a defense from its own carrier, only to have the defense tendered to a
different carrier based upon additional insured status? What is the obligation of the primary insurer? Let’s address this through a factual example.

The Owner hires Contractor to construct a mixed-use building and the Contractor subsequently hires a Subcontractor. The contract between Contractor and Subcontractor calls for Subcontractor to add and recognize Contractor as an additional insured to its policy.

Substantial completion is achieved and the Owner takes possession of the building despite a payment dispute between Contractor and Owner. The Contractor files suit against the Owner. The Owner claims major structural issues with the building. The Owner then files a Counterclaim for breach of contract and negligence against the Contractor and joins the Subcontractor under a negligence theory.

Contractor and Subcontractor each turn the claims over to their respective carriers, and each provide a defense under a reservation of rights. …