Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

The PIOGA Press

By now you have probably heard that on December 1 the salary threshold required for employees to qualify for the executive, professional or administrative exemptions allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) will double. While certainly significant, this recent update to the overtime regulations was not unexpected, as the salary threshold has not been increased since 2004.

This change is of course not the only recent wage and hour development of which oil and gas employers must be aware. In addition to the fact that Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has been specifically targeting the oil and gas industry since 2012, there are other, far less distinct trends that have been taking shape over the past year. The DOL and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have announced new rules and cases that could increase employee headcounts and expand the concept of joint employment. In short, for purposes of the FLSA, some oil and gas employers may actually have more employees than their payrolls indicate.

Determining whether independent contractors are actually employees

In response to the trend of increasing employee misclassification investigations and private wage and hour lawsuits, last summer the DOL issued a 15-page interpretative memorandum with an aim to provide “additional guidance” for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor under the FLSA. Although classification as an independent contractor can be advantageous (or even preferable) for workers and businesses alike, improperly classified workers do not receive certain workplace protections such as the minimum wage, overtime compensation, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. Improper classification also frequently results in lower tax revenues for the government and an unfair advantage against those employers that do properly classify their workers. …

The Legal Intelligencer

On July 14, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Hunterstown Ruritan Club v. Straban Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 327 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016), confirming that a property owner’s failure to register a nonconforming use with a municipality and obtain a nonconforming use certificate is not fatal to the continuance of the use.

The law in Pennsylvania regulating legal, nonconforming uses is well settled. A nonconforming use is a use that predates a prohibitory zoning regulation; it constitutes a vested, constitutional property right that may be continued unless the use is a nuisance, abandoned, or extinguished by eminent domain, as in Hafner v. Zoning Hearing Board of Allen Township, 974 A.2d 1204, 1210 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). For example, an existing legal auto body shop does not have to move upon the adoption of a zoning ordinance that prohibits the shop in its present location. Rather, the shop can continue to operate as a nonconforming use.

The burden of proving the existence of a nonconforming use falls upon the property owner. In order to establish a nonconforming use, a property owner must present objective evidence that the subject property was devoted to such use at the time the prohibitory zoning regulation was enacted, as in Appeal of Lester M. Prange, 647 A.2d 279, 281 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). Finally, property owners with a legal, nonconforming use have a constitutionally protected right to expand the use, notwithstanding its status as nonconforming, as in Lench v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 852 A.2d 442, 444 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). This right of natural expansion is not, however, unlimited. Pennsylvania courts have consistently concluded that while a property owner may increase the intensity of a nonconforming use (e.g., an increase in the number of users or an increase in the frequency of the use), a nonconforming use may not be expanded if it would be: inconsistent with the public interest; …

PA Law Weekly

Earlier this summer, our firm reminded you about major changes that take effect on Dec. 1, 2016, when the salary threshold required for employees to qualify for the executive, professional, or administrative exemptions allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is doubled. While certainly significant, the updated overtime regulations were not unexpected as the salary threshold has not been increased since 2004.

This sweeping change is not however, the only recent wage-and-hour development of which employers must be aware. There are other, far less distinct trends that have been taking shape over the past year. The Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have announced new rules and cases that could increase employers’ head counts and expand the concept of joint employment. In short, for purposes of the FLSA, some employers may actually have more employees than their payrolls indicate.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

In response to the trend of increasing employee misclassification investigations and private wage-and-hour lawsuits, last summer the DOL issued a 15-page interpretative memorandum with an aim to provide “additional guidance” for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor under the FLSA. Although classification as an independent contractor can be advantageous (or even preferable) for workers and businesses alike, improperly classified workers do not receive certain workplace protections such as the minimum wage, overtime compensation, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Improper classification also frequently results in lower tax revenues for the government and an unfair advantage against those employers that do properly classify their workers.

The FLSA broadly defines the word “employ” as “to suffer or permit to work.” According to the U.S Supreme Court in United States v. …

The PIOGA Press

On June 28, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the rule “Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category” in the Federal Register. The final rulemaking, which takes effect August 29, prohibits the discharge of unconventional wastewater pollutants from production, field exploration, drilling, well completion or well treatment to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).

The rule amends the effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) found in 40 CFR Part 435, which set the effluent limitations and guidelines for oil and gas extraction under the Clean Water Act. Subchapter C of Part 435, which applies to onshore production of oil and gas, already prohibits the discharge of wastewater pollutants into navigable waters from any source associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion or well treatment. The final rulemaking extends the Subchapter C prohibition to include the indirect discharge of unconventional wastewater pollutants through POTWs.

EPA defines unconventional wastewater pollutants, in part, to include drilling muds, drill cuttings, produced sand and produced water. EPA defines “unconventional oil and gas” as “crude oil and natural gas produced by a well drilled into a shale and/or tight formation (including, but not limited to, shale gas, oil, tight gas, and tight oil).” In the accompanying “Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category,” EPA notes that its final definition of unconventional oil and gas is “generally consistent with those in other readily available sources,” including the Pennsylvania Code.

EPA states in the preamble that the final rule is not projected to affect current industry practice or to result in incremental compliance costs because “the data reviewed by EPA show that the [unconventional oil and gas] extraction industry is not currently managing wastewaters by sending them to POTWs.” Nonetheless, operators might consider reviewing the U.S. …

The Legal Intelligencer

While Pennsylvania’s natural gas production is on the rise, energy lawyers in the state said that will not have an immediate impact on their practices. But, they said, the numbers forecast a bright future for multidisciplinary energy practices in Pennsylvania, as well as the overall state economy.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection published its annual Oil and Gas Report earlier this month, which said Pennsylvania’s natural gas production rate increased to a record high, despite a nationwide downturn in oil and gas drilling activities.

“It reaffirms the idea that we have a stable and productive amount of natural gas,” said Joseph Reinhart, co-chair of Babst Calland’s energy and natural resources practice group. “That means good things for the economy including the lawyers.”

Lawyers said the production statistics will draw industry to Pennsylvania. But the positive consequences, particularly in the legal industry, may not be immediate, as infrastructure remains lacking and the industry overall is still experiencing a downturn.

“It’s going to take a few years for things to play out,” northeast Pennsylvania energy lawyer Stephen Saunders said. When it does, “people that are really committed to keeping up to the developments in the industry, they’re going to have work to do.”

According to the DEP report, more than 4.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas was produced in Pennsylvania last year, up from about 4.1 trillion in 2014 despite a reduction in the number of natural gas wells being drilled.

Last week, acting DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell said Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale natural gas wells are the most productive in the United States, according to a report in the Observer-Reporter, a southwestern Pennsylvania newspaper.

Reinhart noted that the annual report is not even up to date, since it is based on 2015 numbers. …

The PIOGA Press

On June 23, Governor Tom Wolf signed Act 52 of 2016, the Pennsylvania Grade Crude Development Act, formally Senate Bill 279. Act 52 abrogates the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB) revisions to the Chapter 78 regulations concerning conventional oil and natural gas wells and creates the Pennsylvania Grade Crude Development Advisory Council.

In February, the EQB approved the Chapter 78 (conventional wells) and Chapter 78a (unconventional wells) Subchapter C revisions by a vote of 15-4. The Chapter 78 revisions would have altered or created new obligations for permit applications and renewals, water supply replacement, predrilling surveys and reviews, erosion and sediment control, emergency response plans, wastewater management, disposal of drill cuttings, site restorations, spills and releases, and production reporting. The revisions also included 31 different requirements for electronic applications, notifications and submittals.

Act 52 applies only to the conventional regulations. The Chapter 78a unconventional regulations are currently undergoing review at the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and are expected to be published in late summer.

In addition to abrogating the pending revisions to Chapter 78, Act 52 specifies that any future rulemaking concerning conventional wells must be undertaken separately and independently of unconventional wells and other subjects. Future rulemakings concerning conventional wells must include a regulatory analysis form submitted to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) that is restricted to the subject of conventional wells.

Act 52 addresses the primary criticism of PIOGA and other trade associations and the Department of Environmental Protection’s Conventional Oil and Gas Advisory Committee (COGAC) regarding EQB’s Chapter 78 revisions. Specifically, Act 126 of 2014 required EQB to promulgate proposed regulations relating to conventional wells separately from proposed regulations relating to unconventional wells, which should have removed pending revisions applicable to conventional operations proposed in 2013. …

Employment Bulletin

Many employers have implemented policies mandating employees involved in an accident at the workplace to undergo drug and alcohol screening. Effective August 10, 2016 such blanket, automatic policies will likely run afoul of the injury reporting requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act).

On May 12, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its Final Rule amending employers’ obligations to report and record injuries, and clarifying its interpretation of the injury reporting requirements of the Act. 29 CFR §1904.35(b)(1)(i) requires the employer to establish a “reasonable procedure for employees to report work-related injuries and illnesses ….” OSHA “clarified” this requirement by adding the following: “A procedure is not reasonable if it would deter or discourage a reasonable employee from accurately reporting a workplace injury or illness …”

In the comments accompanying the Final Rule, OSHA noted that many commenters to the proposed rule complained that employer policies requiring automatic post-injury drug and alcohol testing were a form of adverse action that discouraged reporting. The comments state that:

Although drug testing of employees may be a reasonable workplace policy in some situations, it is often perceived as an invasion of privacy, so if an injury or illness is very unlikely to have been caused by employee drug use, or if the method of drug testing does not identify impairment but only use at some time in the recent past, requiring the employee to be drug tested may inappropriately deter reporting.

OSHA concluded that “the evidence in the rulemaking record shows that blanket post-injury drug testing policies deter proper reporting.” OSHA did not ban all post-incident reporting, but the comments set forth the agency’s view that it should be severely limited:

[T]his final rule does not ban drug testing of employees. …

The Legal Intelligencer

The Rolling Stones said it best: “Time is on my side, yes it is.” This has never been more accurate after the publication of the much-anticipated final rule updating overtime regulations, as an estimated 4.2 million workers who were previously exempt from receiving overtime pay may be eligible for overtime starting Dec. 1, 2016.

On May 18, President Obama and Department of Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez announced the publication of the Department of Labor’s Final Rule titled “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees.” The final rule updated overtime regulations, including an update on the salary and compensation levels needed for employees to be considered exempt, (29 CFR Part 541).

The Fair Labor Standards Act

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an employee is entitled to overtime of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. However, certain executive, administrative, and professional employees are exempt from this rule. These employees are commonly referred to as “exempt employees.” To be considered exempt, three tests must be met: The employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed (salary basis test); the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount (salary level test); and the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative or professional duties as defined by the regulations (duties test).

Combination of ‘Long’ and ‘Short’ Duties Test

Prior to 2004, the regulations implemented both a “long” and “short” duties test. The long test paired a lower salary requirement with a more stringent duties test—meaning that to qualify a worker could perform no more than 20 percent of their time on nonexecutive, administrative, or professional duties. …

The Legal Intelligencer

On March 2, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Embreeville Redevelopment v. Board. of Supervisors of West Bradford Township, 134 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016), which clarified when a zoning ordinance amendment, although solely textual on its face, constitutes a zoning map change and triggers the additional notice requirements under Section 609(b) of the Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10609(b).

The Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq., (MPC), which establishes the framework for zoning and land use regulation in Pennsylvania, sets forth the detailed procedure a municipality must follow when adopting or amending a zoning ordinance. In pertinent part, a municipality intending to amend its zoning ordinance, regardless of whether the proposed amendment is a text amendment or a zoning map change, must: transmit a copy of the proposed amendment to the county planning agency (if one has been created) for review and comment; transmit a copy of the proposed amendment to the municipality’s planning commission for review and comment (if the planning commission did not prepare the amendment); hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment; and publish notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendment twice, in two successive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality no more than 30 and no less than seven days before the public hearing, (see MPC Sections 304(a)(3) and 609; 53 P.S. Sections 304(a)(3) and 609). In addition to the foregoing requirements, if a proposed amendment involves a zoning map change, Section 609(b) of the MPC requires that a municipality also conspicuously post notice of the public hearing on the properties affected by the proposed map change; and mail notice of the public hearing to the owners of property affected by the proposed map change. …