The National Law Forum

USCIS Releases H-1B Lottery Information: Registration Process Begins March 6

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released guidance on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 H-1B lottery process. The registration system will be open from noon Eastern, March 6, 2024 until noon Eastern, March 22, 2024. The application fee will remain $10 for each case entered into the system.

This year, USCIS will implement a new “Beneficiary Centric Selection” process that will help to ensure all beneficiaries have an equal chance of selection, regardless of the number of times each beneficiary is registered. Please see “Winning Futures? The H-1B ‘Lottery’ Will Open Soon. USCIS Predicts Success” for more details.

Why is H-1B filing season important?

This is the only time of year (with minor exceptions indicated below) USCIS accepts H-1B specialty worker petitions for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2024. For a petition to qualify in the H-1B category, the job offered must be a specialty occupation in which a bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) is normally the minimum requirement, and the foreign national employee must hold a bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) in the specialty defined by the position. In some cases, a bachelor’s-level threshold may be met through a combination of the employee’s education and work experience.

There is an overwhelming demand for the annual allotment of 85,000 new H-1Bs. The number of H-1B approvals requested by employers has reached the annual H-1B cap every year for more than 10 years. Last year, USCIS received 780,884 registrations within the electronic lottery system for 85,000 H-1B slots. If you have an employee that needs a “new” H-1B visa, it is imperative that you take action during the H-1B filing season or you will have to wait a full year for another opportunity.

Electronic registration process in 2024

USCIS will use same the electronic registration system from years past to implement the new beneficiary centric selection process. Employers seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions must complete an electronic registration for every case the employer wishes to enter into the H-1B lottery. This year, the employer must enter a valid passport or travel number for each registrant. If selected, the passport or travel number used in the H-1B petition filing must be the same number used at the time of registration. This new approach, focusing on the individual registrant, should increase selection odds.

After the registration period closes, USCIS will conduct a random selection lottery from the registrations. The date of the lottery selection has not been announced but will likely occur on or about April 1, 2024. Employers whose cases are selected will then have at least 90 days to complete and file H-1B petitions with USCIS.

Dinsmore attorneys are available to assist employers in navigating the new application process, including completion of the electronic registration and subsequent preparation and filing of selected petitions. USCIS continues to develop its electronic registration system and is expected to release additional details as the registration period approaches.

Are there certain employees we should consider registering?

Yes, four situations come to mind:

Students who hold F-1 visa status and who are working for your organization under a grant of Curricular Practical Training, Optional Practical Training or STEM Optional Practical Training work permission;
Certain L-1 Intracompany Transferees or TN (USMCA/NAFTA) workers who work for your organization;
Candidates who are not yet working for your organization but whom you have an interest in employing in the near future; and
Dependent spouses who hold H-4 status and who have been authorized to work with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).

Why F-1 students?

Some F-1 students may qualify for an Optional Practical Training (OPT) work permission that is limited to one year following completion of their degree. Other F-1 students may be eligible for an additional 24 months of STEM OPT work permission. Either way, OPT is time-limited. Furthermore, some additional students may hold Curricular Practical Training (CPT). CPT authorizes employment off campus while the student is still taking classes. These students may be pursuing their first degree in the U.S., or they may have returned to school for an additional degree following exhaustion of their first round of OPT if they were not selected in the H-1B cap lottery. Bottom line: If you have a student working for you on OPT or CPT, it is worth evaluating if they need an H-1B cap registration.

Why L-1 intracompany transferees?

The L-1 intracompany transferee visa category applies to foreign nationals who have been employed abroad in executive, managerial or specialized knowledge capacities for at least one year with a commonly owned foreign company, and who are in the United States working for the same or a related U.S. employer.

L-1 executives or managers (L-1A) may remain in the United States for a maximum of seven years. Specialized knowledge (L-1B) employees may remain for a maximum of five years. There is no possibility of an extension once the seven-or five-year limit has been reached and the time table to complete the permanent residence process continues to climb, especially for Indian foreign nationals.

Why H-4 spouses with employment authorization documents?

H-4 spouses are eligible to apply for an H-4 Employment Authorization Document (EAD) if their spouses in H-1B status have an approved I-140 petition. The H-4 EAD allows the spouse to obtain work authorization and engage in employment in the United States. H-4 spouses working with EADs may wish to have their H-4 statuses changed to H-1B for greater long-term employment security.

Why TN employees?

While TN workers under the U.S. Mexico-Canada Agreement (formerly known as NAFTA) are not limited in employment duration like their L-1 counterparts, pursuing permanent residence while holding TN status can be problematic. Employers may want to change their TN employees to the H-1B category to facilitate permanent residence (green card) sponsorship.

Are there any exemptions from the annual H-1B cap?

Persons already counted under the H-1B cap and who need an extension of stay are not subject to the annual limitation. Similarly, persons who already hold H-1B status and are transferring to a new employer are exempt from the cap. The annual limitation applies only to persons not yet counted against the annual cap. Also, certain types of educational or nonprofit organizations that file H-1B petitions are exempt from the H-1B numerical limitation.

Managing Workplace Conflict: 3 Lessons to Learn from the Super Bowl Game Kelce-Reid Incident

During the recent Super Bowl game, millions of viewers witnessed a tense moment that quickly became a talking point far beyond the realm of sports. Kansas City Chiefs’ star tight end, Travis Kelce, was seen apparently pushing and yelling at Head Coach Andy Reid. The incident seemed to stem from the player’s frustration over being sidelined during a crucial part of the game, leading to an outburst that suggested he was demanding more playing time.

This high-profile episode serves as a powerful example for managers and supervisors across all industries, illustrating the challenges of dealing with insubordinate (and possibly disruptive) behavior in the workplace. If not for Coach Reid’s calm and collected response, this incident could have escalated into a far more unpleasant exchange.

Drawing lessons from the incident, here are three key actions that leaders can take when faced with threatening or insubordinate employees:

1. Exercise Professional Restraint and Demonstrate Leadership

The first lesson is the importance of maintaining composure and professionalism. In any situation where tensions may rise, it’s crucial for managers to exercise restraint and avoid escalating the situation further. This approach not only helps in diffusing immediate tension, but also sets a positive example for the rest of the team. It’s essential that managers not misuse their position of power; rather, as Coach Reid exemplified, demonstrating calm and decisive leadership can often de-escalate a potentially volatile situation.

2. Refer to Company Policies and Engage HR

When dealing with insubordination or an outburst by an employee, it’s important to follow established corporate protocols. Managers should consult the company’s employee handbook for procedures to handle complaints and investigations. Filing a formal complaint with Human Resources can initiate a process that is both fair and impartial. Ideally, the HR department should be properly trained to address a tense situation. This step ensures that all parties are heard, and that the incident is addressed thoroughly, respecting the rights and dignity of everyone involved, and setting an example for the rest of the company.

3. Support the Investigative Process

Once a complaint is filed, cooperating fully with the ensuing investigation is paramount. An effective investigation can uncover the root causes of the conflict, offering insights into not just what happened, but why. By supporting this process, managers can help ensure that resolutions are just, and that similar incidents can be prevented in the future. It’s also an opportunity for organizations to reinforce their commitment to a respectful and safe working environment for all employees.

Conclusion

The incident at the Super Bowl game, while unfortunate, provides valuable lessons for leaders in any field. Managing workplace conflict requires a balanced approach that prioritizes restraint, adherence to company policies, and support for the investigative process. By applying these principles, managers and supervisors can navigate complex interpersonal challenges, fostering a workplace culture that is both respectful and productive.

Recognizing principles of good leadership remains constant and essential, whether on the football field or in the office.

Understanding How U.S. Export Controls Affect Manufacturers’ Hiring Practices

The U.S. government has adjusted export control regulations in an effort to protect U.S. national security interests. The revisions primarily affect export of electronic computing items and semiconductors to prevent foreign powers from obtaining critical technologies that may threaten national security. As manufacturers are facing increased demand for their products and critical labor shortages, they may find themselves seeking to hire foreign national talent and navigating U.S. export control and immigration and anti-discrimination laws.

Export Control Laws in United States

The primary export control laws in the United States are the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Under these regulations, U.S. Persons working for U.S. companies can access export-controlled items without authorization from the U.S. government. U.S. Persons include: U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, Lawful permanent residents, Refugees, and Asylees. Employers might need authorization from the appropriate federal agency to “export” (in lay terms, share or release) export-controlled items to workers who are not U.S. Persons, which the regulations call foreign persons. Employers apply for such authorization from either the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Department of Commerce, depending on the item.

The release of technical data or technology to a foreign person that occurs within the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the foreign person’s “home country.” Whether an export license is required for a particular release may depend on both the nature of export controls applicable to the technology or technical data (including whether it is subject to the ITAR or EAR) and the citizenship of the foreign person.

Recent revisions to the EAR cover controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items, among other controls. These revisions particularly affect semiconductor and chip manufacturers and exporters.

Intersection With Immigration and Anti-Discrimination Laws

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics.

The INA prohibits discrimination based on national origin or citizenship, among other characteristics. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, which typically includes discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. Furthermore, the INA prohibits “unfair documentary practices,” which are identified as instances where employers request more or different documents than those necessary to verify employment eligibility or request such documents with the intent to discriminate based on national origin or citizenship.

The intersection of export control laws, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws can create a confusing landscape for employers, particularly manufacturers or exporters of export-controlled items. Manufacturers and exporters, like all employers, must collect identity and employment authorization documentation to ensure I-9 compliance. At the same time, however, they must collect information relating to a U.S. Person in connection with export compliance assessments. To address these areas of exposure for employers, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division released an employer fact sheet to provide guidance for employers that includes best practices to avoid discrimination.

Implications

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should separate the I-9 employment authorization documentation process from the export control U.S. Person or foreign person identification process. Employers should implement or revisit internal procedures and provide updated training to employees.

The export rule revisions highlight the challenges for employers in avoiding discrimination when complying with export control laws. Manufacturers and exporters should review their compliance practices regarding U.S. export control, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws with experienced counsel. Employers should implement policies and procedures reasonably tailored to address export control compliance requirements while not engaging in discrimination on the basis of citizenship or national origin.

by: Maurice G. Jenkins , Kimberly M. Bennett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more news on Export Control Laws, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Road to Victory Just Got a Little Easier for Whistleblowers

In 2017, a federal jury found whistleblower Trevor Murray was wrongfully terminated after he refused “to change his research on commercial mortgage-backed securities.” He won over $900,000. On appeal in 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned Murray’s award, finding whistleblowers who bring a retaliation claim against their employer under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, issuing a unanimous decision in Trevor Murray v. UBS Securities LLC, et al. The justices found that the Second Circuit was wrong. That is, “when it comes to a plaintiff’s burden of proof on intent under SOX, they only need to show that their protected activity contributed to an unfavorable personnel action, such as a firing.” Once the plaintiff does this, the Supreme Court found the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that “it would have taken the same adverse action regardless of the employee’s protected activity.” The justices found the law is intended ”to be plaintiff-friendly.”

In light of this development, employers should continue to be diligent in documenting the reasons that lead to an employee’s termination. This is especially true if that employee may be found to have engaged in a protected activity, cloaking them with certain whistleblower protections.

In siding with whistleblower Trevor Murray, the justices rejected UBS’ position that a separate finding of retaliatory intent is required for whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX, which governs corporate financial reporting and recordkeeping.

Compliance Update — Insights and Highlights January 2024

On December 7, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ordered Atlantic Union Bank, an approximately $20 billion bank headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, to pay $6.2 million for “illegal overdraft fee harvesting” and “illegally enrolling thousands of customers in checking account overdraft programs.” The bank was ordered to pay $5 million in refunds and $1.2 million to a victims’ relief fund.

Regulation E provides that a bank may not charge a fee for an ATM or one-time debit card transaction unless it completes four steps. First, the bank must provide the customer with a notice describing the bank’s overdraft services in writing. Then, the bank must provide the customer with a “reasonable opportunity” for that customer to “affirmatively consent” to the payment of the ATM or one-time debit card transaction fee. Third, the customer must provide that “affirmative consent” or opt-in to the bank. And finally, the bank must provide the customer with written confirmation of their consent, including a statement of the right to revoke the consent at any time.

The CFPB alleged that Atlantic Union Bank failed to obtain proper consent when an account was opened in person at a branch. Bank employees orally provided customers with options for opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees pursuant to Regulation E. Bank employees asked customers to opt in orallyand then input the option into the bank’s account-opening computer system before printing the written consent form. The consent form was printed at the end of the account-opening process and was pre-populated with the customer’s oral opt-in choice.

In instances in which a customer was given options for opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees over the phone, bank employees did not have a script and allegedly provided misinformation and misleading statements about the benefits, costs, and other aspects of opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees pursuant to Regulation E.

The CFPB has taken the logical approach that a bank must provide the customer with a written disclosure of its overdraft practices prior to having them opt in. Additionally, without providing the customer with a prior written disclosure, a bank should not pre-populate its Regulation E opt-in form. Now is the time to review the consent order and your bank’s Regulation E opt-in processes and procedures.

Minimizing National Labor Relations Act Liability for Employers with Non-Unionized Workforces

This post continues our consideration of comments submitted in response to proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).

Under current law, if a plan provides any mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits in any classification of benefits, benefits for that condition or use disorder must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical (M/S) benefits are provided. Classifications for this purpose include inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. The proposed regulations modify this standard by providing that a plan does not provide benefits for MH/SUD benefits in every classification in which M/S benefits are provided unless the plan provides meaningful benefits for treatment for the condition or disorder in each such classification “as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for medical/surgical conditions in the classification.”

The term “meaningful benefits” is nowhere defined. The regulators nevertheless “recognize that the proposal to require meaningful benefits [ ] is related to scope of services.” “Scope of services” for this purpose generally refers to the types of treatments and treatment settings that are covered by a group health plan or health insurance issuer. The preamble to the proposed regulation invites comments on how the meaningful benefits requirement “would interact with the approach related to scope of services adopted under the 2013 final regulations.” The preamble of the 2013 final regulations addressed an issue characterized as ‘‘scope of services’’ or ‘‘continuum of care’’ but otherwise failed to provide any substance. Two examples from the proposed regulations do, however, give us a sense of what the regulators have in mind.

A plan that generally covers treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a mental health condition, and covers outpatient, out-of-network developmental evaluations for ASD but excludes all other benefits for outpatient treatment for ASD, including applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy, when provided on an out-of-network basis. (ABA therapy is one of the primary treatments for ASD in children.) The plan generally covers the full range of outpatient treatments and treatment settings for M/S conditions and procedures when provided on an out-of-network basis. The plan in this example violates the applicable parity standards.
In another example, a plan generally covers diagnosis and treatment for eating disorders, a mental health condition, but specifically excludes coverage for nutrition counseling to treat eating disorders, including in the outpatient, in-network classification. Nutrition counseling is one of the primary treatments for eating disorders. The plan generally provides benefits for the primary treatments for medical conditions and surgical procedures in the outpatient, in-network classification. The exclusion of coverage for nutrition counseling for eating disorders results in the plan failing to provide meaningful benefits for the treatment of eating disorders in the outpatient, in-network classification, as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for M/S conditions in the classification. Therefore, the plan violates the proposed rules.

Notably, the newly proposed meaningful benefits requirement is separate from, and in addition to, the newly prescribed nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) testing standards. These latter standards include a “no more restrictive” requirement, a “design and application” requirement and an “outcomes data and network composition” requirement. A handful of comments nevertheless urge the regulators to add scope of services to its non-exhaustive list of NQTLs. As a result, a plan’s scope of services would be subject to comprehensive NQTL testing. Or, put another way, they would be fed back into the NQTL testing loop. Using the first of the examples above, this would require that ABA therapy to be first compared to the treatment limitations imposed on some M/S benefits in each classification. But what benefits, exactly? The problem is that a plan’s scope of services – what types of treatments a plan will pay for and in what settings – is a high-level plan design feature and not an NQTL.

While reasonable minds can and do differ on much of the substance of the proposed regulations, we doubt that anyone would claim that they streamline or simplify compliance. Compliance with these rules is already complicated and expensive; if the final rule looks anything like the proposed regulations, compliance will only get more complicated and more expensive. The proposed meaningful benefits requirement is intended to prevent plans, as a matter of plan design, from satisfying the parity rules by offering nominal or insubstantial MH/SUD benefits when compared to similar M/S benefits in each classification. Treating a plan’s scope of services as itself a separate NQTL does not advance this goal.

Third Time’s a Charm? SEC & CFTC Finalize Amendments to Form PF

On February 8, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly adopted amendments to Form PF, the confidential reporting form for certain registered investment advisers to private funds. Form PF’s dual purpose is to assist the SEC’s and CFTC’s regulatory oversight of private fund advisers (who may be both SEC-registered investment advisers and also registered with the CFTC as commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisers) and investor protection efforts, as well as help the Financial Stability Oversight Council monitor systemic risk. In addition, the SEC entered into a memorandum of understanding with the CFTC to facilitate data sharing between the two agencies regarding information submitted on Form PF.

Continued Spotlight on Private Funds

The continued focus on private funds and private fund advisers is a recurring theme. The SEC recently adopted controversial and sweeping new rules governing many activities of private funds and private fund advisers. The SEC’s Division of Examinations also continues to highlight private funds in its annual examination priorities. Form PF is similarly no stranger to recent revisions and expansions in its scope. First, in May 2023, the SEC adopted requirements for certain advisers to hedge funds and private equity funds to provide current reporting of key events (within 72 hours). Second, in July 2023, the SEC finalized amendments to Form PF for large liquidity fund advisers to align their reporting requirements with those of money market funds. And last week, this third set of amendments to Form PF, briefly discussed below.

SEC Commissioner Peirce, in dissent:

“Boundless curiosity is wonderful in a small child; it is a less attractive trait in regulatory agencies…. Systemic risk involves the forest — trying to monitor the state of every individual tree at every given moment in time is a distraction and trades off the mistaken belief that we have the capacity to draw meaning from limitless amounts of discrete and often disparate information. Unbridled curiosity seems to be driving this decision rather than demonstrated need.”

Additional Reporting by Large Hedge Fund Advisers on Qualifying Hedge Funds

These amendments will, among other things, expand the reporting requirements for large hedge fund advisers with regard to “qualifying hedge funds” (i.e., hedge funds with a net asset value of at least $500 million). The amendments will require additional disclosures in the following categories:

Investment exposures, borrowing and counterparty exposures, currency exposures, country and industry exposures;
Market factor effects;
Central clearing counterparty reporting;
Risk metrics;
Investment performance by strategy;
Portfolio, financing, and investor liquidity; and
Turnover.

While the final amendments increase the amount of fund-level information the Commission will receive with regard to individual qualifying hedge funds, at the same time, the Commission has eliminated the aggregate reporting requirements in Section 2a of Form PF (noting, in its view, that such aggregate information can be misleading).

Enhanced Reporting by All Hedge Funds

The amendments will require more detailed reporting on Form PF regarding:

Hedge fund investment strategies (while digital assets are now an available strategy to select from, the SEC opted not to adopt its proposed definition of digital assets, instead noting that if a strategy can be classified as both a digital asset strategy and another strategy, the adviser should report the strategy as the non-digital asset strategy);
Counterparty exposures (including borrowing and financing arrangements); and
Trading and clearing mechanisms.

Other Amendments That Apply to All Form PF Filers

General Instructions. Form PF filers will be required to report separately each component fund of a master-feeder arrangement and parallel fund structure (rather than in the aggregate as permitted under the existing Form PF), other than a disregarded feeder fund (e.g., where a feeder fund invests all its assets in a single master fund, US treasury bills, and/or “cash and cash equivalents”). In addition, the amendments revise how filers will report private fund investments in other private funds, “trading vehicles” (a newly defined term), and other funds that are not private funds. For example, Form PF will now require an adviser to include the value of a reporting fund’s investments in other private funds when responding to questions on Form PF, including determining filing obligations and reporting thresholds (unless otherwise directed by the Form).
All Private Funds. Form PF filers reporting information about their private funds will report additional and/or new information regarding, for example: type of private fund; identifying information about master-feeder arrangements, internal and external private funds, and parallel fund structures; withdrawal/redemption rights; reporting of gross and net asset values; inflows/outflows; base currency; borrowings and types of creditors; fair value hierarchy; beneficial ownership; and fund performance.

Final Thoughts

With the recent and significant regulatory spotlight on investment advisers to private funds and private funds themselves, we encourage advisers to consider the interrelationships between new data reporting requirements on Form PF and the myriad of new regulations and disclosure obligations being imposed on investment advisers more generally (including private fund advisers).

The effective date and compliance date for new final amendments to Form PF is 12 months following the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Robert Bourret also contributed to this article.

OECD Tour de Table Includes Information on U.S. Developments on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has published the latest edition of the Developments in Delegations on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials and Advanced Materials — Tour de Table. The Tour de Table compiles information provided by delegations on the occasion of the 23rd meeting of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) in June 2023. The Tour de Table lists U.S. developments on the human health and environmental safety of nanomaterials. Risk assessment decisions, including the type of nanomaterials assessed, testing recommended, and outcomes of the assessment include:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed review of four low volume exemptions (LVE) that included a graphene material, a titanium dioxide material, and two graphene oxide materials, one of which was a modification to an existing exemption. EPA denied two of the LVEs and granted two under conditions that limited human and environmental exposures to prevent unreasonable risks.
According to the Tour de Table, EPA has under review 17 premanufacture notices (PMN), 16 of which are for multi-walled carbon nanotube chemical substances and one of which is for a graphene material. The Tour de Table states that EPA is still reviewing these 17 chemical substances for potential risks to human health and the environment. EPA completed its review of one significant new use notice (SNUN) for a single-walled carbon nanotube, regulating it with a consent order due to limited available data on nanomaterials. The consent order limits uses and human and environmental exposures to prevent unreasonable risks.

The Tour de Table includes the following information regarding risk management approaches in the United States:

Between June 2022 and June 2023, EPA received notification of two nanoscale substances based on metal oxides that met reporting criteria pursuant to its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a), bringing the total number of notifications to 87. Reporting criteria exempted nanoscale chemical substances already reported as new chemicals under TSCA and those nanoscale chemical substances that did not have unique or novel properties. According to the Tour de Table, most reporting was for metals or metal oxides.
Since January 2005, EPA has received and reviewed more than 275 new chemical notices for nanoscale materials under TSCA, including fullerenes and carbon nano-onions, quantum dots, semiconducting nanoparticles, and carbon nanotubes. EPA has issued consent orders and significant new use rules (SNUR) permitting manufacture under limited conditions. A manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a designated significant new use identified in a SNUR must submit a SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before engaging in the new use. The Tour de Table notes that because of confidential business information (CBI) claims by submitters, EPA may not be allowed to reveal to the public the chemical substance as a nanoscale material in every new chemical SNUR it issues for nanoscale materials. EPA will continue to issue SNURs and consent orders for new chemical nanoscale materials in the coming year.
Because of limited data to assess nanomaterials, the consent orders and SNURS contain requirements to limit exposure to workers through the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), limit environmental exposure by not allowing releases to surface waters or direct releases to air, and limit the specific applications/uses to those described in the new chemical notification.

Regarding updates, including proposals, or modifications to previous regulatory decisions, the Tour de Table states that “[t]he approaches used, given the level of available information, are consistent with previous regulatory decisions. EPA’s assessments now assume that the environmental hazard of a nanomaterial is unknown unless acceptable hazard data is submitted with nanomaterial submission.”

The Tour de Table lists the following new regulatory challenge(s) with respect to any action for nanomaterials:

Standards/methods for differentiating between different forms of the same chemical substance that is a nanomaterial;
Standardized testing for the physical properties that could be used to characterize/identify nanomaterials; and
Differentiation between genuinely new nanoscale materials introduced in commerce and existing products that have been in commerce for decades or centuries.

Commerce Department Launches Cross-Sector Consortium on AI Safety — AI: The Washington Report

The Department of Commerce has launched the US AI Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC), a multistakeholder body tasked with developing AI safety standards and practices.
The AISIC is currently composed of over 200 members representing industry, academia, labor, and civil society.
The consortium may play an important role in implementing key provisions of President Joe Biden’s executive order on AI, including the development of guidelines on red-team testing[1] for AI and the creation of a companion resource to the AI Risk Management Framework.

Introduction: “First-Ever Consortium Dedicated to AI Safety” Launches

On February 8, 2024, the Department of Commerce announced the creation of the US AI Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC), a multistakeholder body housed within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The purpose of the AISIC is to facilitate the development and adoption of AI safety standards and practices.

The AISIC has brought together over 200 organizations from industry, labor, academia, and civil society, with more members likely to join in the coming months.

Biden AI Executive Order Tasks Commerce Department with AI Safety Efforts

On October 30, 2023, President Joe Biden signed a wide-ranging executive order on AI (“AI EO”). This executive order has mobilized agencies across the federal bureaucracy to implement policies, convene consortiums, and issue reports on AI. Among other provisions, the AI EO directs the Department of Commerce (DOC) to establish “guidelines and best practices, with the aim of promoting consensus…[and] for developing and deploying safe, secure, and trustworthy AI systems.”

Responding to this mandate, the DOC established the US Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute (AISI) in November 2023. The role of the AISI is to “lead the U.S. government’s efforts on AI safety and trust, particularly for evaluating the most advanced AI models.” Concretely, the AISI is tasked with developing AI safety guidelines and standards and liaising with the AI safety bodies of partner nations.

The AISI is also responsible for convening multistakeholder fora on AI safety. It is in pursuance of this responsibility that the DOC has convened the AISIC.

The Responsibilities of the AISIC

“The U.S. government has a significant role to play in setting the standards and developing the tools we need to mitigate the risks and harness the immense potential of artificial intelligence,” said DOC Secretary Gina Raimondo in a statement announcing the launch of the AISIC. “President Biden directed us to pull every lever to accomplish two key goals: set safety standards and protect our innovation ecosystem. That’s precisely what the U.S. AI Safety Institute Consortium is set up to help us do.”

To achieve the objectives set out by the AI EO, the AISIC has convened leading AI developers, research institutions, and civil society groups. At launch, the AISIC has over 200 members, and that number will likely grow in the coming months.

According to NIST, members of the AISIC will engage in the following objectives:

Guide the evolution of industry standards on the development and deployment of safe, secure, and trustworthy AI.
Develop methods for evaluating AI capabilities, especially those that are potentially harmful.
Encourage secure development practices for generative AI.
Ensure the availability of testing environments for AI tools.
Develop guidance and practices for red-team testing and privacy-preserving machine learning.
Create guidance and tools for digital content authentication.
Encourage the development of AI-related workforce skills.
Conduct research on human-AI system interactions and other social implications of AI.
Facilitate understanding among actors operating across the AI ecosystem.

To join the AISIC, organizations were instructed to submit a letter of intent via an online webform. If selected for participation, applicants were asked to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)[2] with NIST. Entities that could not participate in a CRADA were, in some cases, given the option to “participate in the Consortium pursuant to separate non-CRADA agreement.”

While the initial deadline to submit a letter of intent has passed, NIST has provided that there “may be continuing opportunity to participate even after initial activity commences for participants who were not selected initially or have submitted the letter of interest after the selection process.” Inquiries regarding AISIC membership may be directed to this email address.

Conclusion: The AISIC as a Key Implementer of the AI EO?

While at the time of writing NIST has not announced concrete initiatives that the AISIC will undertake, it is likely that the body will come to play an important role in implementing key provisions of Biden’s AI EO. As discussed earlier, NIST created the AISI and the AISIC in response to the AI EO’s requirement that DOC establish “guidelines and best practices…for developing and deploying safe, secure, and trustworthy AI systems.” Under this general heading, the AI EO lists specific resources and frameworks that the DOC must establish, including:

A “companion resource” to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.
Guidelines for the deployment of red-team testing for AI systems.
Policies to support the development and deployment of privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) and testbeds for the development of safe AI.
Guidelines for the assessment of dual-use foundation models.
A “companion resource” to the NIST Secure Software Development Framework that reflects recent advances in AI.

It is premature to assert that either the AISI or the AISIC will exclusively carry out these goals, as other bodies within the DOC (such as the National AI Research Resource) may also contribute to the satisfaction of these requirements. That being said, given the correspondence between these mandates and the goals of the AISIC, along with the multistakeholder and multisectoral structure of the consortium, it is likely that the AISIC will play a significant role in carrying out these tasks.

We will continue to provide updates on the AISIC and related DOC AI initiatives. Please feel free to contact us if you have questions as to current practices or how to proceed.

Endnotes

[1] As explained in our July 2023 newsletter on Biden’s voluntary framework on AI, “red-teaming” is “a strategy whereby an entity designates a team to emulate the behavior of an adversary attempting to break or exploit the entity’s technological systems. As the red team discovers vulnerabilities, the entity patches them, making their technological systems resilient to actual adversaries.”

[2] See “CRADAs – Cooperative Research & Development Agreements” for an explanation of CRADAs. https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/crada.

Raj Gambhir contributed to this article.

Form I-9 Software: Avoiding Unlawful Discrimination When Selecting and Using I-9 and E-Verify Software Systems

A recent employer fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides guidance for avoiding unlawful discrimination and other violations when using private software products to complete Forms I-9 and E-Verify cases.

Quick Hits

Employers are responsible for selecting and using software products that avoid unlawful discrimination and comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements.
Employers must not use software products that violate Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements or involve system limitations that unlawfully discriminate among workers.
DOJ and DHS advise employers to train staff on Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, and to provide access to published government guidance on Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements.

Employer Compliance With Form I-9 Software Products

The fact sheet reminds employers to use the current Form I-9 and properly complete the Form I-9 for each new hire after November 6, 1986, with any acceptable employee documents. Form I-9 systems must comply with requirements for electronic signatures and document storage including the ability to provide Form I-9 summary files containing all information fields on electronically stored Forms I-9. The fact sheet confirms required software capabilities and employer practices to properly complete the Form I-9 and avoid unlawful discrimination.

Employers must ensure that any software:

allows employees to leave form fields blank, if they’re not required fields (such as Social Security numbers, if not required on E-Verify cases);
allows workers with only one name to record “Unknown” in the first name field and to enter their names in the last name field on the Form I-9;
uniquely identifies “each person accessing, correcting, or changing a Form I-9”;
permits Form I-9 corrections in Section 1 and does not complete Section 1 corrections for workers, unless completing preparer/translator certifications in Supplement A;
retains all employee information and documents presented for form completion; and
permits Form I-9 corrections in Section 2 and allows completion of Supplement B reverifications with any acceptable employee documents.

Employer Compliance With E-Verify Software Products

The fact sheet reminds employers to comply with E-Verify program requirements when using software interfaces for E-Verify case completion. The fact sheet confirms required software capabilities and employer practices for completing E-Verify cases. Employers must still:

provide employees with current versions of Further Action Notices and Referral Date Confirmation letters in resolving Tentative Nonconfirmations (mismatches) in the E-Verify system;
provide English and non-English Further Action Notices and Referral Date Confirmation letters to employees with limited English proficiency;
display E-Verify notices confirming employer use of E-Verify;
“promptly notify employees in private” of E-Verify mismatches and provide Further Action Notices. If an employee who has been notified of a mismatch takes action to resolve the mismatch, provide the Referral Date Confirmation letter with case-specific information;
delay E-Verify case creation, when required. For example, when workers are awaiting Social Security numbers or have presented acceptable receipts for Form I-9 completion, employers must be able to delay E-Verify case creation; and
allow employees to resolve E-Verify mismatches prior to taking any adverse action, including suspensions or withholding pay.

Prohibited Employer Activity When Using Form I-9 Software

The fact sheet notes that an employer that uses private software products for Form I-9 or E-Verify compliance is prohibited from:

completing the Form I-9 on an employee’s behalf unless the employer is helping an employee complete Section 1 as a preparer or translator;
prepopulating employee information from other sources, providing auto-correct on employee inputs, or using predictive language for form completion;
requiring more or less information from employees for Form I-9 completion or preventing workers from using preparers/translators for form completion;
improperly correcting the Form I-9, improperly creating E-Verify cases, or failing to report corrections in the Form I-9 audit trail;
requesting more or different documentation than needed for Form I-9 completion, or failing to complete reverification in Supplement B of the Form I-9; and
imposing “unnecessary obstacles” in starting work or receiving pay, “such as by requiring a Social Security number to onboard or by not paying an employee who can complete the Form I-9 and is waiting for a Social Security number.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Staff Training and Technical Support

The fact sheet warns employers against using software products that do not provide technical support to workers, and it notes that employers are required to provide training to staff on Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance. Resources for staff members using software products for Form I-9 and E-Verify case completion include I-9 Central, the Handbook for Employers M-274, the M-775, E-Verify User Manual, and DOJ publications.

The National Law Forum

USCIS Releases H-1B Lottery Information: Registration Process Begins March 6

Like this:

Managing Workplace Conflict: 3 Lessons to Learn from the Super Bowl Game Kelce-Reid Incident

Like this: