Posts for April 30, 2010

CONSUMER SPENDING BOOSTS ECONOMIC GROWTH IN 1Q

April 30, 2010 – Today in Manufacturing.net
Economy grew at a solid 3.2 percent pace during the first quarter of this year as consumers boosted their spending by the most in three years... continue

Environmental Law (Pending Cases)

April 30, 2010 – NAM Manufacturing Law Center

Challenge to EPA’s endangerment finding. Leading a broad coalition of business groups, the NAM on February 16 filed a petition in federal court challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) process by which it found that greenhouse gas emissions justify an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. We oppose this step in the EPA’s efforts to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gases, including everything from industrial facilities to farms. EPA’s action further complicates a permitting process that it is not equipped to handle, while increasing costs to the manufacturing sector. On April 15, the NAM and other petitioners filed a list of the legal issues to be litigated. At the same time, EPA asked the court to hold the case in abeyance until August 16 or until EPA can respond to various petitions for reconsideration that were filed with the agency, whichever comes first. NAM v. EPA (D.C. Cir.).

Validity of permit for exploratory oil and gas drilling in Alaska. The NAM has asked a federal appeals court to reject an effort that would delay exploratory drilling for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska. The Department of the Interior has conducted an extensive evaluation of the process and concluded that exploration would cause no significant impact on the environment. The NAM filed an amicus brief on April 7 arguing that exploratory drilling is an important step in the process of utilizing the Outer Continental Shelf to improve energy self-sufficiency, national security, balance of payments and job creation. Native Village of Hope Point v. Salazar (9th Cir.).

Whether carbon dioxide must be considered in EPA PSD permits. On April 2, EPA completed its reconsideration of the Johnson memo and published a new “Subject to Regulation” notice that makes January 2, 2011 the date on which greenhouse gas emissions are regulated. The Sierra Club had challenged the earlier version of the EPA memo that had refused to require PSD permits for facilities that emit greenhouse gases. This case is being held in abeyance until EPA further considers its rules on GHGs. Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Cir.).

ERISA

April 30, 2010 - NAM

Deference to decisions by benefit plan administrators. On April 21, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an appeals court decision that interfered with administrative decisions by those who run company pension plans. The case involves how a company’s plan administrator should account for lump-sum retirement payments made to employees who retired but later returned to work for the company. The NAM had filed an amicus brief arguing – and the Supreme Court agreed – that courts should defer to the reasonable decisions by plan administrators trying to interpret benefit plan language under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case encourages certainty and predictability, tempers litigation expenses and administrative costs, and minimizes exposure to unanticipated benefits obligations. Conkright v. Frommert (S. Ct.).

INTERNATIONAL ARMORING CORPORATION COMPLETES ARMORING CONTRACT

April 30, 2010 – Utah Business

International Armoring Corporation (IAC), announced they have completed, in association with Armormax South Africa (an IAC affiliate company), the armoring of more than 700 passenger vehicles in the country of South Africa. The armoring of these rapid response vehicles were contracted by a leading international security company for the purpose of protecting their reaction officers in the country of South Africa. With an average of 13,000 armored car-jackings every quarter in Johannesburg alone, the risk to their reaction officers has remained unacceptably high.

(Note: IAC is a UMA member company and UMA congratulates them on landing this contract)
View Full Article

PRODUCT LIABILITY

April 30, 2010 - NAM

Duty to warn about hazards of third party products. The NAM filed a brief in January arguing that manufacturers should not have a new legal duty to warn customers about risks that might arise from products made by other manufacturers that are used in conjunction with their products. This new duty is inconsistent with California law and with most courts around the country. On April 22, 2010 the California court overturned a $5.6 million jury award, agreeing that a manufacturer does not have such a duty. William Powell Co. v. Walton (Cal. Ct. App.).