Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Water Law Newsletter

(by Lisa Bruderly, Mackenzie Moyer and Ethan Johnson)

On September 6, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) published the Proposed Conditional State Water Quality Certification for the PASPGP-7 (SWQC), 55 Pa. Bull. 6477 (Sept. 6, 2025). The proposed conditional SWQC is for applicants seeking coverage under PASPGP-7 (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit) for projects that do not require a federal license or permit other than a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Comments on the SWQC were due by October 6, 2025.

DEP offered four main conditions, summarized below, that, if fulfilled, would demonstrate that a proposed activity under PASPGP-7 would comply with state water quality standards and certain provisions of the CWA:

1. Prior to beginning any activity authorized by the Corps under PASPGP-7, the applicant must obtain all necessary environmental permits or approvals and submit all required environmental assessments and other information necessary to obtain the permits and approvals.
2. The applicant must comply with required environmental assessments and other regulatory requirements.
3. Fill material may not contain any type of waste as defined in 35 Pa. Stat. § 6018.103 of the Solid Waste Management Act.
4. Applicants and projects eligible for the PASPGP-7 must obtain all state permits or approvals, or both, necessary to ensure that the project meets the state’s applicable water quality standards, including a project-specific SWQC, if needed.

As background, PASPGP-7 allows applicants to obtain both Corps section 404 permits and coverage under DEP permits or other authorizations for water obstructions and encroachments submitted to the DEP and for projects requiring permits or authorizations in this Commonwealth. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Korbel, Anna Hosack and Peter Zittel)

Social media has become the modern town square for many public officials.  Whether it’s sharing a recap of a school board meeting, celebrating a community event, or commenting on local issues, platforms like Facebook and Instagram are now a routine part of how leaders connect with their constituents.  But what happens when those online conversations intersect with Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, 65 P.S. § 67.101, et seq. (the “RTKL”)?  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered this question recently in Penncrest School District v. Cagle, 341 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2025), a case that sheds new light on how personal social media use by public officials can blur into the purview of the RTKL.

In May 2021, controversy arose in the Penncrest School District (“Penncrest”) after a high school library display included several books addressing LGBTQ+ issues.  A third-party contractor photographed the display and posted it to Facebook, where a school board member shared the image on his personal account, adding comments denouncing the display as “evil” and suggesting he would raise the issue at a future school board meeting.  Another board member also shared the post without commentary.  The incident drew local media coverage, and a resident, Thomas Cagle, filed a request under the RTKL seeking school board members’ emails and social media posts related to the incident.  While Penncrest released some district emails, it denied the request for board members’ social media posts, arguing that such content came from personal accounts.  Cagle appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, which granted his request, reasoning that the board members’ posts directly related to district business, citing prior cases that emphasized substance over account ownership. …

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(by Kristen Petrina)

Due to the lack of a United States national data privacy law, the EU-U.S. have attempted to create a legal framework that permits a streamlined, regulated, and sufficient data transfer framework. Since 2015, three different data transfer agreements between the European Union and the United States were introduced. All three have faced challenges due to concerns the data transfer agreements did not provide adequate protections for EU citizens’ data from U.S. government surveillance.

The first data transfer agreement implemented but was found to be inadequate and invalidated in 2015 by the EU’s Court of Justice was the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor framework, which was deemed insufficient for protecting EU citizens’ personal data and fundamental rights, particularly in light of revelations about U.S. surveillance programs. The second data transfer agreement implemented but ultimately found to be inadequate and invalidated in 2020 by the EU’s Court of Justice was the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, which was deemed to not offer the same level of protection as the GDPR. In particular, the framework did not adequately protect EU citizens’ data from U.S. government surveillance. The EU-U.S. Safe Harbor and EU-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks were challenged by Maximiliam “Max” Schrems and his data privacy rights organization NOYB – European Center for Digital Rights (NOYB). The challenges are referenced as Schrems I and Schrems II cases, respectively.

The third data transfer agreement implemented was the Data Privacy Framework (DPF). The EU-U.S. DPF was challenged by Latombe citing, among other claims, the U.S. Data Protection Review Court lacked true independence and impartiality, established as a key redress pillar under the DPF, and the sufficiency of safeguards governing bulk data collection by U.S. surveillance and intelligence agencies without prior authorization from EU citizens and lacked adequate oversight. …

Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA Press

(by Sloane Wildman and Alex Graf)

On September 17, 2025, EPA announced that it will retain the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance designation for PFOA and PFOS, two PFAS compounds.  The final rule designating PFOA and PFOS (and their salts and structural isomers) as hazardous substances under CERCLA became effective on July 8, 2024.  Substances designated as hazardous under CERCLA are subject to release reporting requirements, specific spill rules, release tracking requirements, and additional reporting mandates under other environmental statutes.  Further, EPA may require potentially responsible parties – PRPs – to clean up or pay for the cleanup of hazardous substances.  In conjunction with EPA’s announcement, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted a filing in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir.) (ongoing litigation, currently in abeyance, challenging the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS), asking the court to lift the abeyance and propose an amended briefing schedule.

Prior to its 2024 PFOA and PFOS designation, EPA’s CERCLA hazardous substance list was comprised solely of substances designated under other environmental statutes (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act).  EPA’s 2024 designation of PFOA and PFOS represented the first time the Agency used its authority under CERCLA Section 102(a) to list specific hazardous substances that were not designated under another environmental statute.  In this week’s announcement, EPA stated its intention to initiate a rulemaking to “establish a uniform framework governing designation of hazardous substances under section 102(a) of CERCLA moving forward.”  Such a “Framework Rule” would establish a uniform approach to guide future CERCLA hazardous substance designation, including EPA’s method for considering the costs of proposed designation. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Antonelli and Alex Farone)

Recent activity from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) indicates yet another shift in the Commission’s view on non-compete agreements, the latest in a turbulent 16-month period for this topic that began with the FTC’s May 2024 publication of a final rule banning most non-competes throughout the country.

The rule was set to take effect 120 days later, on September 4, 2024, and it would have banned the vast majority of new non-competes with employees, independent contractors, and volunteers nationwide, with the exception of those entered into pursuant to certain business sales. The ban was published based on the view of the Commission, which was controlled by a Democratic majority at the time, that non-competes are an unfair method of competition and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In addition to the ban, the rule would have required employers to notify impacted workers of their agreements’ unenforceability.

Two weeks before its effective date, on August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the ban with its opinion in Ryan LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission. The court ruled that the ban exceeded the FTC’s statutory authority. In doing so, it held that the creation of substantive rules stretched beyond the FTC’s power, and that the ban was unreasonably overbroad. The FTC appealed the court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The FTC filed its appellate brief in January 2025 but then sought a stay of the appeal in March 2025.

On September 5, 2025, one year and one day after the ban was originally set to take effect, the FTC formally withdrew its appeal of the Ryan decision as well as a similar appeal pending in the 11th Circuit. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

PIOGA Press

(by Gary Steinbauer, Gina Buchman, and Christina Puhnaty)

On July 31, 2025, EPA published in the Federal Register its highly anticipated Interim Final Rule to extend several deadlines in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, OOOOb and OOOOc that were promulgated in EPA’s 2024 Methane Rule. 90 Fed. Reg. 35966 (July 31, 2025).  That same day, environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Interim Final Rule. Envtl. Defense Fund v. U.S. EPA, Case #25-1164 (D.C. Cir.). Absent a stay by the court, which the environmental groups are currently not seeking, the Interim Final Rule and the various extended deadlines are effective.

Summary of Deadline Extensions

The Interim Final Rule extends numerous compliance deadlines for oil and gas air emission sources subject to the New Source Performance Standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, OOOOb and OOOOc.  The previous compliance deadlines were published in a March 2024 final rule.  89 Fed. Reg. 16820 (March 8, 2024).  The Interim Final Rule, which became effective upon publication, extends many deadlines in OOOOb, the date that the requirements of the Super-Emitter Program apply with respect to OOOO, OOOOa, and OOOOb, and the date by which states must submit plans to EPA pursuant to the OOOOc emissions guidelines.

EPA extended the following OOOOb compliance deadlines to at least January 22, 2027:

• Process Controllers: The date by which process controller affected facilities are required to be zero-bleed devices. 40 CFR §§ 60.5370b(a)(5)(i), 60.5390b(a), 60.5415b(h)(1).

• Storage Vessels:
  • The date by which receiving additional crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbons, or produced water throughput at tank batteries triggers a modification.

…

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(by Susanna Bagdasarova and Justine Kasznica)

On July 23, 2025, the White House released “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan”,[1] a sweeping federal initiative setting forth the administration’s strategy to secure U.S. global leadership in artificial intelligence. Issued pursuant to Executive Order 14179, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”,[2] the Action Plan outlines more than 90 federal policy actions across three strategic pillars: accelerating innovation, building American AI infrastructure, and leading in international diplomacy and security. The administration describes the effort as a path to “a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” goals that the Action Plan aims to realize through regulatory reform, infrastructure expansion and investment, and significant geopolitical engagement.

Guiding Principles

Three central principles[3] shape the Action Plan’s policy directives across all strategic pillars:

1. The American worker must benefit from the AI revolution. The expansion of AI infrastructure encouraged by the Action Plan aims to generate high-paying jobs, and AI-driven advancements in sectors like medicine and manufacturing are expected to raise the overall standard of living. Rather than displacing workers, AI is intended to enhance and support their roles.
2. Neutrality and objectivity must be foundational components of AI technologies. AI systems must be “free from ideological bias” and be “designed to pursue objective truth rather than social engineering agendas”.
3. National security depends on protecting AI systems. In a rapidly technologically advancing world, security initiatives must focus on preventing theft and misuse of U.S. AI technologies, as well as risk management and monitoring for emerging threats.

…

Washington, DC

Babst Calland announced that Nicholas McDaniel has joined the firm as a shareholder in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. With more than a decade of combined government and private practice experience, most recently as a senior enforcement attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, McDaniel will be a member of the firm’s Litigation, Environmental, and Energy and Natural Resources groups. He will counsel companies on environmental compliance, enforcement, and litigation challenges.

At Babst Calland, McDaniel will focus his practice on complex environmental and commercial litigation for clients in the energy, natural resources, and manufacturing sectors. His work will include enforcement defense, citizen suits, and disputes involving environmental contamination. He also brings significant experience navigating bankruptcy proceedings involving environmental claims and negotiating settlements with regulators and citizen groups.

During his tenure at DOJ, McDaniel led major federal enforcement actions and complex negotiations that resulted in landmark environmental settlements. Notably, he secured the largest-ever civil penalty under the Clean Air Act, and is a three-time recipient of the prestigious Assistant Attorney General’s Award for Excellence – first for litigating and settling a cost recovery action under the Oil Pollution Act related to the longest-running oil spill in U.S. history, then for securing CERCLA cost recovery and natural resource damages on behalf of the United States, and later for his record Clean Air Act settlement. He also received numerous other honors, including the 2024 Arthur S. Flemming Award for legal achievement and recognition from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for exceptional service.

Earlier in his career, he litigated energy and rate-making cases before the Public Utilities Commission and in state courts with the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

“Nick is a highly skilled litigator with significant first-chair trial experience who has handled some of the toughest environmental enforcement cases in the country,” said Mark K. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Developing Pittsburgh

(by Ben Clapp and Gary Steinbauer)

Announced through a record-breaking number of executive orders, memoranda and directives, new White House energy and environmental policy initiatives are resulting in a rapidly changing environmental regulatory climate affecting the business community.

To help clients keep pace with these new policy initiatives, and recent steps that EPA has taken to implement this broad deregulatory agenda, attorneys at the law firm Babst Calland offer advice on how businesses can adapt and thrive in a swiftly changing regulatory environment.

It will be some time before we get a clear picture on “this administration’s policy objectives and how they’re all going to unfold,” Gary Steinbauer, a shareholder working with the environmental law practice of Babst Calland’s Pittsburgh office, says.

One of the emerging energy policy themes is the Trump administration’s goal of “American energy dominance,” achieved through permitting reform and environmental deregulation in the energy sector. Other themes include de-emphasizing climate change-based regulatory initiatives, promoting domestic manufacturing and mineral extraction, and grid reliability.

Executive orders 101

An executive order is a written statement in which a president broadcasts a directive to implement a policy change.

Presidents have fairly broad authority in terms of the scope of what they can order, “provided that that order is consistent with the applicable laws,” Ben Clapp, shareholder and chair of the environmental section at Babst Calland’s Washington, D.C. office, says.

A president cannot, through executive order, revise a regulation or amend or revoke a law.  However, a president can revoke a previous administration’s executive orders and use them to announce new policy initiatives. Sometimes, when undertaking specific activities that have been delegated to the executive branch by Congress or the Constitution, they can compel a specific, direct action through an executive order without further procedures. …