Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Posted
by

Developers subject to the Federal Power Act (FPA) should carefully consider the implications of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s recent opinion on the scope of the “municipal preference” under Section 7(a) of the FPA. The Court, in HydroelectricWestern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, et al., v. FERC, recently considered the breadth of the “municipal preference” in Section 7(a) of the FPA, including the meaning of “municipality,” and declined to support the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s “geographic proximity test” for municipalities to qualify for the preference. Under the Court’s ruling, a municipality qualifies for the municipal preference regardless of their proximity to the location of the development. Developers may now be exposed to greater competition for developments with municipalities having a trump card because they qualify for the municipal preference.  As one would hope, the Court of Appeals restated the importance of the Court’s review FERC’s interpretation under the two-step framework of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984).  The opinion, of course, also reflects the Supreme Court’s use of Chevron in deciding a number of important cases the past two terms. This opinion may also result in FERC being more careful in the future.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

In Sixth Circuit Rejects Clean Air Act Preemption of State Common Law Claims: Four Things to Know, Pillsbury attorneys Matt Morrison and Bryan Stockton explore the Six Circuit Court of Appeals recent rejection of Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. (CAA), preemption of state common law claims in Merrick, et al. v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc. and Little et al. v. Louisville Gas & Electric Company; PPL Corporation. The takeaway is that a facility that is otherwise in compliance with CAA emission requirements can still face lawsuits by neighboring landowners for traditional torts such as nuisance and trespass. Merrick and Little add to the foundation of precedent across the Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits, and Iowa Supreme Court.

Posted
by

In what may be a harbinger of things to come, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit debated the propriety of using the court’s own internet research to decide a case before it.  The case is Rowe v. Gibson, et. al., decided on August 19, 2015; a pro se prisoner civil rights dispute that was dismissed by the district court. Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 7, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated an order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) in an unfair labor practices matter because the Board’s Acting General Counsel, who plays a very prominent role in the Board’s enforcement work, was serving in that capacity in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA).  The case is SW General, Inc. dba Southwest Ambulance v. National Labor Relations Board.  Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On August 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a very rare Writ of Mandamus, directing the EPA to issue a “full and final response” by October 31, 2015 to a pesticide regulatory petition filed several years ago by the Pesticide Action Network North America.  The case is In re Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The American Arbitration Association (AAA) recently revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, effective July 1, 2015. Some changes are relatively modest, but others expand the powers of the arbitrator and may alter traditional assumptions underlying the selection of arbitration as a dispute resolution process for construction projects.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), is a federal law that allow for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government. FOIA defines agency records that are subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants exemptions from disclosure. Many states similar laws governing the disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the state and its agencies. The theory is that the government should be open and transparent unless the government has a good reason to withhold the information sought. On March 31, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a long opinion in Sea Shepherd Conservation Society v. Internal Revenue Service, regarding the IRS’s response to Sea Shepherd’s FOIA request seeking information from the IRS about its investigation of Sea Shepherd.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Effective April 1, 2015, employers are required to comply with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board’s amended Personal Protective Devices and Safeguards regulations. Among other amendments, Subdivision (d) of Sections 1514 (Construction Safety Orders) and 3380 (General Industry Safety Orders) of Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations have been amended to state: “The employer shall assure that all required safety devices and safeguards, whether employer or employee provided, including personal protective equipment for the eyes, face, head, hand, foot, and extremities (limbs), protective clothing, respiratory protection, protective shields and barriers comply with the applicable Title 8 standards and are maintained in a safe, sanitary condition.”

Other Resources: Cal/OSHAB, Personal Protective Devices and Safeguards, Rulemaking Documents

Posted
by

APRIL 2016 UPDATE:  In Additional Steps to Ease U.S. Sanctions and Export Controls for Cuba prior to Obama Visit, Pillsbury attorneys Chris Wall, Steve Becker, Nancy Fischer, and Aaron Hutman discuss the additional steps taken by the Administration, in advance of President Obama’s highly publicized trip to Cuba, to ease restrictions on trade and travel with Cuba. These changes to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations have implications for various industries.

Yesterday, Pillsbury attorneys Chris Wall, Steve Becker, Nancy Fischer, Aaron Hutman and Stephanie Rohrer published their advisory titled Treasury and Commerce Departments Issue Regulations to Implement New Cuba Policy. The Advisory discusses the Obama administration’s implementation of its promised changes to U.S. sanctions and export controls for Cuba, changes effective January 16, 2015. Although most trade and transactions still are prohibited, the revisions to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR) ease licensing requirements in a number of areas, including exports to and imports from Cuba of certain types of goods and services, telecommunications and Internet services, travel and travel services, financial services, remittances, and treatment of Cuban nationals in third countries.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Chris Wall, Steve Becker, Nancy Fischer, Aaron Hutman or Stephanie Rohrer, the authors of this blog.

Additional Source: A New U.S. Course for Cuba Relations: What Does It Mean for Business?

Posted
by

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Jim Chudy and Brian Wainwright published their advisory titled Five Facts About the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014. The Advisory provides an overview of the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (Division A of H.R. 5771), signed into law by President Obama on December 19, 2014, an Act that extends many tax provisions that had expired at the end of 2013.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Jim Chudy or Brian Wainwright, the authors of this blog.