April 3, 2020

U.S. DOT Agencies Extend COVID-19 HazMat Relief

Transportation Safety Alert

(by Boyd Stephenson, Varun Shekhar, Jame Curry)

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies that regulate the surface transportation of hazardous materials (HazMat) have extended several forms of relief.  The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has waived some HazMat training requirements and delayed some equipment recertifications.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are implementing PHMSA’s waiver in their modes.  FMCSA has also allowed states to extend the effective dates for commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) and commercial learner’s permits (CLP).  Additionally, FRA has activated its emergency docket.  FRA has not extended any hazardous materials-specific relief.

Hazardous Materials Shippers, Carriers, and Package Manufacturers

  • On March 25th, PHMSA issued an updated policy declining to enforce recurrent training requirements under 49 C.F.R. § 172.704(c)(2) against HazMat employers unable to train employees due to COVID-19.  Employers are still required to provide initial training to a new hazardous materials employee before the employee may perform regulated functions.
  • On April 1st, PHMSA issued two surface transportation-related emergency special permits authorizing the filling and transportation of certain DOT specification cylinders up to 12 months after they are due for a periodic requalification during the COVID-19 emergency.  PHMSA also authorized the transportation of certain cylinders overdue for retesting due to COVID-19 disruptions.

Truck Transportation

  • On March 18th, FMCSA issued an expanded emergency declaration waiving certain provisions of Parts 390 through 399—most notably the hours of service requirements—for drivers providing direct assistance in support of relief efforts.  Direct assistance includes transporting medical supplies, food, paper, and grocery products;

    • …

April 3, 2020

PADEP Will Consider Requests to Temporarily Suspend Environmental Requirements Due to COVID-19

Environmental Alert

(by Lisa Bruderly and Daniel Hido)

As businesses in Pennsylvania struggle to deal with significant disruptions and challenges to their operations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental agencies have recognized the challenges that the pandemic presents to achieving compliance with environmental obligations. For example, on March 26, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a temporary policy for excusing COVID-19-related noncompliance (see Babst Calland’s March 30, 2020 Environmental Alert for further details). Similarly, on March 31, 2020, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued an Alert announcing that it would consider requests to temporarily suspend certain regulatory, permit, and/or other legal requirements due to COVID-19. It also provided the form needed to make such a request. This announcement reflects a thought change from PADEP’s previous assertion that COVID-19’s impact on businesses in Pennsylvania would not excuse compliance with environmental laws, stating that “[a]ll permittees and operators are expected to meet all terms and conditions of their environmental permits, including conditions applicable to cessation of operations.”

What is Required to Request a Temporary Suspension?

Unlike USEPA’s temporary policy, which does not require regulated entities to submit documentation regarding an inability to meet routine compliance obligations, PADEP is requiring submittal of the request form. While PADEP did not elaborate on how it will review requests for suspension, it will generally evaluate (1) the reasons for the request in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the risk of harm to the environment or public health if the request is or is not granted.

Importantly, it will not be enough for entities to show that COVID-19 has restricted their ability to comply with regulatory, permit, or other legal requirements; …

April 3, 2020

Update: Interim Final Rule Issued for Paycheck Protection Program

Client Alert

(by Moore Capito, Christian Farmakis and Andrew Terranova)

On April 2, 2020, the Small Business Administration (the SBA) published an Interim Final Rule regarding the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP Loan), enacted as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Below are critical points that the SBA has clarified in the published guidance. The Interim Final Rule can be found here.

What is the interest rate of the loan?

The SBA has advised that the interest rate of the loan has been increased from a 0.5 percent fixed rate to a 1 percent fixed rate.

Do independent contractors count as employees for purposes of PPP Loan calculations or PPP Loan forgiveness?

No. Independent contractors have the ability to apply for their own PPP Loans, so they do not count for purposes of a borrower’s PPP Loan calculations or forgiveness.

How can PPP Loan proceeds be used?

The proceeds of a PPP loan are to be used for:

  1. payroll costs (as defined in the Act and in 2.f.);
  2. costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits during periods of paid sick, medical, or family leave, and insurance premiums;
  3. mortgage interest payments (but not mortgage prepayments or principal payments);
  4. rent payments;
  5. utility payments;
  6. interest payments on any other debt obligations that were incurred before February 15, 2020; and/or
  7. refinancing an SBA EIDL loan made between January 31, 2020 and April 3, 2020.

    8. …

April 2, 2020

US Supreme Court Update: Cases to Watch for CERCLA Practitioners

The Legal Intelligencer 

(by Alana Fortna)

While there are several interesting environmental cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, two cases are particularly relevant for any legal practitioner handling Superfund cases, whether they involve site remediation issues or litigation over the cleanup costs. The two cases to watch are Atlantic Richfield v. Christian, Case No. 17-1498, and County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Case No. 18-0260. Respectively, these two cases deal with the important legal questions of preemption and how groundwater discharges can be regulated and enforced. Both issues could have a significant impact on the scope of remediation and potential litigation at Superfund sites. CERCLA practitioners should watch for the opinions in these two cases.

The Atlantic Richfield appeal came out of the Montana Supreme Court, and it asks the court whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 preempts state common law remedies. The case involves the Anaconda Smelter Site, a Superfund site covering 300 square miles of property impacted by historical smelter and ore processing operations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the site on the National Priorities List in 1983 and identified Atlantic Richfield Co. as a potentially responsible party (PRP). After years of remedial investigation under EPA oversight, the EPA approved a remedial action plan for the cleanup of the site. The respondents in the appeal are a group of landowners who sued Atlantic Richfield alleging common law tort claims seeking more traditional damages, such as monetary damages and diminution of property value.  However, the respondents also sought relief in the form of restoration, asking that Atlantic Richfield remediate or pay for remediation above and beyond the EPA-approved remedy. …

April 2, 2020

COVID-19 Updates to Pennsylvania & West Virginia Unemployment Laws

Employment & Labor Alert

(by Stephen Antonelli, Mychal Schulz and Brian Lipkin)

At this uncertain time, many employers are considering whether to lay off or furlough employees – particularly employees who are unable to work remotely.  Earlier this week, we provided guidance on an alternative to layoffs and furloughs, as some employers are exploring grants and loans that are available under the new federal and state stimulus programs.  With this Alert, we are providing an update on recent changes to Pennsylvania and West Virginia unemployment laws:

  • Increased Benefit Amounts  Normally, unemployment benefits are capped at $573 per week in Pennsylvania and $424 per week in West Virginia.  Under the Paycheck Protection Program provision of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the federal government will supplement state unemployment benefits by $600 per week.  Through July 31, 2020, unemployment benefits will be capped at $1,173 per week in Pennsylvania, and $1,024 per week in West Virginia.  As a result, for the next four months, some workers may actually earn more in unemployment benefits than they would have earned in wages.  For example, an employee who would otherwise receive $100 per week of state unemployment benefits will now receive an additional $600 per week from the federal government.  After the federal supplement of $600 per week expires, the employee may continue to collect unemployment benefits at the usual rate in each state
  • Expanded Eligibility  Until recently, Pennsylvania and West Virginia limited unemployment benefits to certain employees.  In Pennsylvania, to receive unemployment benefits, an employee must have earned at least $116 per week, during at least 18 weeks in the past year.  In West Virginia, employees must satisfy two requirements within the past year: they must have earned a total of at least $2,200;

    • …

April 1, 2020

End of the Trail: Supreme Court to Hear Atlantic Coast Pipeline Appeal

Institute for Energy Law Oil & Gas E-Report

(by Adam Speer)

On October 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to hear an appeal of the Fourth Circuit’s decision vacating the United States Forest Service’s special use permit authorizing the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to cross beneath a segment of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. In Cowpasture River Preservation Association v. Forest Service, 911 F. 3d 150 (4th Cir. 2018), a three-judge panel from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the United States Forest Service lacked the statutory authority pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) to grant a pipeline right-of-way across the Appalachian Trail. The Fourth Circuit’s decision halted the construction of the ACP. If the decision stands, it could impede the completion of the ACP and affect other current and future pipeline projects along the east coast, like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, that would also cross the Trail.

For the full article, click here.

For the full report, click here.

March 31, 2020

UPDATE: Assessing Your Organization’s Stimulus Program Options

Client Alert

(by Moore Capito, Christian Farmakis and Andrew Terranova)

Earlier today the U.S. Treasury Department (the Department) published additional information on the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP Loan), enacted as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Below are critical points that the Department has clarified in the published guidance.

When can I apply?

  • Small businesses and sole proprietorships can begin submitting applications on Friday, April 3, 2020
  • Independent contractors and self-employed individuals can begin submitting applications on Friday, April 10, 2020.

How much money can be borrowed?

The Department clarified that salary, wages, commissions, or tips are capped at $100,000 on an annualized basis for each employee.

How much of the loan is forgiven?

Due to likely high subscription, the Department anticipates that not more than 25% of the forgiven amount may be for non-payroll costs.

What is the interest rate of the loan?

0.5% fixed rate.

Read the latest guidance information issued by the Department of Treasury below.

For a top-line overview of the program, click here.

If you’re a lender, more information can be found here.

If you’re a borrower, more information can be found here.

The application for borrowers can be found here.

For more information on the above program or for assistance in applying for the program, please contact Babst Calland Attorneys Moore Capito at 304.552.8986 or mcapito@babstcalland.com, Christian Farmakis at 412.394.5642 or cfarmakis@babstcalland.com or Andrew Terranova at 412.773.8717 or aterranova@babstcalland.com. …

March 31, 2020

EPA’s New Proposed Interpretation of “Begin Actual Construction” Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Regulations

Environmental Alert 

(by Julie Domike and Michael Winek)

On March 25, 2020, EPA released a draft guidance memorandum proposing to change the agency’s interpretation of the term “begin actual construction” under the New Source Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting regulations.  If finalized, this proposed guidance would expand the activities the factories, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations may undertake while waiting to receive an NSR permit.

Federal NSR permitting regulations provide that “[n]o new major stationary source or major modification . . . shall begin actual construction without a permit that states that the major stationary source or major modification will meet those requirements.” 40 CFR § 52.21(a)(2)(iii).  The regulations define the term “begin actual construction” to mean “in general, initiation of physical on-site construction activities on an emissions unit which are of a permanent nature.” 40 CFR § 52.21(b)(11).

EPA currently interprets “begin actual construction” as almost any physical on-site construction activity that is of a permanent nature, even if the activity does not involve construction “on an emissions unit.”  This interpretation precludes many preparatory activities such as installation of building supports and foundation, paving, laying of underground piping, construction of a permanent storage structure, and other similar activities.

Under the proposed revised interpretation, a source owner or operator, prior to obtaining an NSR permit, may undertake physical on-site activities – including activities that may be costly, that may significantly alter the site, and/or are permanent in nature – provided that those activities do not constitute physical construction on an emissions unit.  Under this interpretation, an “installation necessary to accommodate” the emissions unit at issue is not considered part of the actual emissions unit; thus, construction of such an installation would be permissible in advance of obtaining an NSR permit.  …

March 30, 2020

Assessing Your Organization’s Stimulus Program Options

Client Alert

(by Moore Capito, Christian Farmakis and Andrew Terranova)

The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting every business sector in the United States. Federal government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have announced various stimulus programs to assist businesses eligible to receive certain economic benefits. Babst Calland’s Corporate and Commercial attorneys have been following the existing and new stimulus programs currently being offered.

This is a time-sensitive opportunity to consider how these programs may apply to your business. Various programs are summarized below for your convenience. Together, we can help you navigate this crisis and prepare your organization to continue thriving in the months and years ahead. To schedule a private conversation to help you evaluate whether these programs are right for your company, contact Attorney Moore Capito at 304.552.8986 or mcapito@babstcalland.com.

ECONOMIC INJURY DISASTER LOAN

Description

An Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) is a long-term, low-interest loan that provides small businesses with working capital of up to $2 million directly from the U.S. Treasury. The intent of this federal program is to provide six months of working capital to qualified applicants.
In response to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has lifted certain requirements to make it easier for small businesses to receive an EIDL.

Who is eligible to receive it?

Small businesses and sole proprietors in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories may apply for an EIDL, so long as they do not exceed the size standard for the industry in which they operate. …

March 30, 2020

EPA Establishes Temporary Policy for Excusing COVID-19-Related Noncompliance

Environmental Alert

(by Lisa Bruderly, Ben Clapp and Gary Steinbauer)

In light of historic protective measures and travel bans to prevent community spread of COVID-19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an unprecedented temporary policy for exercising its enforcement discretion for environmental noncompliance caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  On March 26, 2020, the EPA published a memorandum entitled, COVID-19 Implications for EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program (“EPA’s COVID-19 Policy” or “Policy”).  EPA’s COVID-19 Policy applies retroactively, beginning on March 13, 2020, and is in effect until EPA provides notice online within seven days of its termination.  This Alert addresses five critical questions about EPA’s COVID-19 Policy.

When Does EPA’s COVID-19 Policy Apply?

EPA’s COVID-19 Policy applies when environmental compliance is not “reasonably practical,” despite making every effort to comply.  Coverage under the Policy is not automatic.  It requires regulated entities to take, at a minimum, the following proactive steps: (1) minimize the effect and duration of any noncompliance; (2) identify the nature and date(s) of noncompliance; (3) identify how COVID-19 caused the noncompliance and describe the response actions taken; (4) return to compliance as soon as possible; and (5) document each of these actions.

What Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Obligations Does the Policy Cover?

Generally, EPA does not expect to assess penalties for violations of a wide-range of routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training, and reporting or certification obligations if: (1) the regulated entity takes the steps outlined above and documents that COVID-19 was the cause of the noncompliance, and (2) EPA agrees with the entity’s determination.

EPA expects regulated parties to use existing statutory, regulatory, and permitting requirements for reporting COVID-19-related noncompliance, unless COVID-19 response actions themselves hinder reporting, in which case EPA expects facilities to document and maintain noncompliance-related information internally and make it available upon request.  …

March 26, 2020

2 Recent Court Opinions Clarify Mechanics’ Lien Claim Practices, Procedures

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Marc Felezzola and Benjamin Wright)

Two recent opinions from Pennsylvania’s Superior Court clarify aspects of the practice and procedure surrounding mechanics’ lien claims in the commonwealth—one case addressed whether a subcontractor may serve its formal notice of intent to lien upon an owner via FedEx and the other addressed when, if ever, grounds for statutory preliminary objections to a mechanics’ lien claim will be deemed waived.

  • Superior Court permits service of subcontractor’s formal notice of intent to lien via FedEx.

In American Interior Construction & Blind v. Benjamin’s Desk, 206 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019), the Superior Court was asked to determine whether the procedural rules of the Mechanics’ Lien Law were to be interpreted strictly or whether substantial compliance would suffice.

In American Interior, Benjamin’s Desk had retained Brass Castle Building (Brass) as the general contractor for the construction of office space improvements. Brass retained American Interior Construction & Blind  (AICB) as a subcontractor. AICB completed its work in December 2016 and AICB alleged that Brass failed to pay AICB in full.  AICB served a timely notice of its intent to file a mechanics’ lien against Benjamin’s Desk. However, AICB used FedEx to deliver its notice of intent. AICB then filed its complaint to enforce the lien claim.

Benjamin’s Desk filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer alleging AICB failed to comply with the service-of-notice requirements under the Mechanics’ Lien Law. In response, AICB filed a response arguing that personal service of the formal notice by FedEx is personal service by an adult in the same manner as a writ of summons in assumpsit and therefore was expressly permitted by section 501(d) of the Pennsylvania’s Mechanics’ Lien Act of 1963 (Lien Law), 49 P.S.  …

March 26, 2020

Pennsylvania Legislature Considering Modification of Public Meeting Rules, Suspension/Tolling of Land Use Application Deadlines during COVID-19 Emergency Declaration

Client Alert

(by Blaine Lucas, Stephen Korbel and Max Junker)

Among the many challenges facing Pennsylvania municipalities during the Coronavirus pandemic is how to conduct business in compliance with applicable statutory requirements when the physical presence of their officials, constituents, development applicants and other interested parties is either highly discouraged by public health officials or prohibited altogether. This can be particularly problematic for applicants for a variety of local government land use approvals, consideration and action on which usually are statutorily mandated to take place at public meetings and hearings.

In an effort to address these issues, the Pennsylvania General Assembly is currently considering House Bill No. 1564 on an expedited basis.  Among other things, HB 1564 would relax the requirements for physical attendance at public meetings during the Governor’s declaration of a disaster or emergency by substituting a variety of telecommunications alternatives. It also would provide for the suspension, or tolling, of statutory deadlines for municipal boards and agencies to hear and act upon a wide variety of land use and other development applications during the pendency of such a declaration.  Notably, HB 1564 provides that an applicant can request, and a municipality at its discretion may proceed with, consideration and action on an application using telecommunication alternatives.

HB 1564 is on a fast track, with the House approving it on March 25, 2020, and the Senate expected to act upon it in the next several days. HB 1564 can be viewed here.

The following are the key provisions of HB 1564.

Use of Telecommunication Devices to Conduct Public Meetings

If the declaration is of a disaster or emergency which would render the conduct of public business dangerous to the health or safety of the members of the governing body, officials or members of the public, the governing body may exercise its executive, legislative, and judicial powers and functions, to the extent possible, by means of telecommunication devices without a quorum physically present at any one location, subject to the following requirements:

  • The telecommunication device must permit audio communication between locations, and allow the members of the governing body to speak and hear any comments or votes;

    • …

March 25, 2020

DOL Announces April 1 Effective Date and Additional Guidance on Families First Coronavirus Response Act

Employment & Labor Alert

(by Molly Meacham, Alexandra Farone and Chelsea Heinz)

This is a follow-up to Babst Calland’s client alert on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act provisions and related new leave requirements.  The Department of Labor announced that the effective date will be April 1, 2020.  The leave is not retroactive and begins April 1.  Each company’s number of employees to determine whether it meets the 500-employee threshold will be calculated at the time the leave is to be taken.  The Department of Labor released Question and Answer guidance available here, providing additional preliminary information on calculating the employee threshold, leave calculations, rate of pay calculations, and interactions with other types of leave.  The full regulations have not yet been released, and are expected prior to the April 1 effective date.

The model notice issued by the Department of Labor is available here, and was issued along with a Frequently Asked Questions regarding the notice requirements available here.  The notice does not need to be displayed until April 1, 2020 and most employers will want to wait to publish the notice until their FFCRA policy is ready to avoid employee confusion.   The notice must be posted in a conspicuous place on the employer’s premises, which may include email, company intranet, or physically at the workplace depending upon current operations.

Please contact any of Babst Calland’s Employment and Labor attorneys if you need advice on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and its requirements.

Click here for PDF. 

March 23, 2020

Protect what’s yours: How to create a strong trademark with a new product or business name

Smart Business

(by Jayne Gest with Carl Ronald)

A trademark or service mark identifies a company as the source of a particular set of goods or services. It protects the association, in a consumer’s mind, between goods or services and the company that sells or produces them.

“We try to protect the goodwill a company has earned by registering and enforcing their trademarks to make sure no one obtains an unfair business advantage by trading off our clients’ goodwill in the marketplace,” says Carl Ronald, shareholder at Babst Calland.

Smart Business spoke with Ronald about adopting trademarks.

How long do trademarks last?

Theoretically, trademarks can last forever. Realistically, though, trademark protection lasts as long as you continue to use a name or logo in the marketplace. There are two types, registered and unregistered, and the latter is often called “common law” marks.

A registered trademark is a text or design mark that a company applies for with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. So long as the business continues to use the mark and appropriate maintenance procedures are complied with, the registration will be good for an unlimited number of renewable terms of 10 years each.

Common law marks, on the other hand, last as long as they continue to be used in commerce but convey less protection.

What’s the procedure for protecting a new product or business name?

First, identify the word or logo you wish to use with your product or service, and decide whether you’re likely to use it longer than a few years, in order to justify the cost. …

March 20, 2020

Seeking Clarity around Governor’s Order to Close Pennsylvania Businesses that are not “Life-sustaining”

Client Advisory

(by Jim Corbelli and Molly Meacham)

In the late afternoon of March 19, 2020, and without advanced notice, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf issued an Order for all “non-life-sustaining businesses” in the Commonwealth to close their physical locations.  The Order was effective at 8 p.m. last evening with enforcement to begin at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, March 21.  A copy of the Order can be found here.  There are many questions that arise from the Governor’s Order, and it can be expected that further clarifications will be forthcoming from the Governor’s office. The Governor’s office has also issued a press release with additional information.

In a press conference at 2 p.m. today, the Governor stated that the guidelines are being revised based upon feedback from businesses and other stakeholders, and that the forthcoming guidelines will be in line with the federal government’s Cyberspace and Critical Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) guidance that has identified 16 “Critical Infrastructure Sectors,” as available here.  In addition, the Governor encouraged businesses to seek a waiver if they believe that they have been incorrectly categorized as “non-life-sustaining.”  The waiver process is meant to “cut through red tape” and the Governor stated that decisions will issue via email.

While further guidance remains pending, this Alert will summarize the current Order and suggest methods to address confusion regarding the Order or to seek relief from its provisions.

The Order provides that “No person or entity shall operate a place of business in the Commonwealth that is not a life sustaining business regardless of whether the business is open to the members of the public.” The Order does not prevent working from home. …

Top