Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Teenagers Making a Buck Over School Break? Employers Beware: The Department of Labor Dictates When and Where

For many kids (and school staff), the last bell before winter break heralds freedom and fun. But many teenagers also use the extended time off from school to squeeze in some extra paid work. That means employers should brush up on their obligations under child labor laws. Doing so is especially important since the United States Department of Labor (DOL) announced an increased focus on identifying and stopping unlawful child labor earlier this year. On the heels of this initiative, we outlined best practices for manufacturing employers to avoid inadvertent use of child labor.

In this article, we outline key child labor requirements for companies across industries, as compliance with these requirements is likewise under the DOL’s microscope. Namely, the DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations which dictate when and where children aged 14 to 17 can work. The DOL can (and has been with increasing frequency) investigate employers to review compliance with these parameters — and penalize employers who do not comply.

RESTRICTIONS ON WORK HOURS

Under FLSA regulations, children aged 14 and 15 may not work:

  • During school hours;
  • More than 3 hours on a school day, including Friday;
  • More than 8 hours on a non-school day, such as during winter break;
  • More than 18 hours during a week when school is in session;
  • More than 40 hours during a week when school is not in session, such as during winter break — meaning no overtime for this group; or
  • Before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. (except between June 1 and Labor Day, when the evening hour is extended to 9:00 p.m.) — meaning, you guessed it, no work after 7:00 p.m. during winter break.

Keep in mind that state laws often set stricter work hours requirements. For example, while the FLSA does not restrict work hours for children aged 16 and 17, many state laws do.

RESTRICTIONS ON WORK ENVIRONMENTS

FLSA regulations also ban 14- and 15-year-olds from working in anything other than a list of specified environments. For example, they may work in:

  • Most office jobs;
  • Most retail and food service establishments;
  • Occupations like bagging groceries, stocking shelves, and cashiering;
  • Intellectual or artistically creative occupations, like as a musician, artist, or performer;
  • Limited kitchen work involving cleaning and preparation of food and beverages (but no “cooking” unless certain conditions are satisfied, and no baking); and
  • Clean-up work and grounds maintenance (so long as certain power equipment is not used).

For the 16- and 17-year-old cohort, the FLSA prohibits working in “Hazardous Occupations,” which are identified in a series of “Hazardous Occupation Orders” (“HOs”). The HOs prohibit working in or with:

HO 1 Manufacturing and storing of explosives.
HO 2 Driving a motor vehicle and being an outside helper on a motor vehicle.
HO 3 Coal mining.
HO 4 Forest fire fighting and fire prevention, timber tract management, forestry services, logging, and sawmill occupations.
HO 5* Power-driven woodworking machines.
HO 6 Exposure to radioactive substances.
HO 7 Power-driven hoisting apparatus.
HO 8* Power-driven metal-forming, punching, and shearing machines.
HO 9 Mining (other than coal mining).
HO 10 Meat and poultry packing or processing (including the use of power-driven meat slicing machines).
HO 11 Power-driven bakery machines.
HO 12* Balers, compactors, and paper-products machines.
HO 13 Manufacturing brick, tile, and related products.
HO 14* Power-driven circular saws, band saws, guillotine shears, chain saws, reciprocating saws, wood chippers, and abrasive cutting discs.
HO 15 Wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking operations.
HO 16* Roofing operations and all work on or about a roof.
HO 17* Excavation operations.

The asterisk* indicates that there are student-learner and apprenticeship exemptions, which typically involve specific criteria that employers must meet in order to employ a 16- or 17-year-old in the occupation. (Please note: No 14- or 15-year-old is ever permitted to work in an HO.) This winter break, remember that “HO, HO, HO” is generally a “no, no, no” for minor employees.

BOTTOM LINE: BE CAREFUL WITH THE KIDS!

Employing minors can be a great way for them to gain valuable real-world experience and, of course, money. But employers should take care to ensure that their minor employees are scheduled appropriately and are not permitted to work in any prohibited tasks or with any prohibited equipment. Don’t let the extra help around the holidays trigger a DOL investigation or child labor law violation!

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more news on Employing Minors Over Holiday Break, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

NLRB Issues Final Rule on Joint-Employer Status, Answering a Major Question No One Asked

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) issued its Final Rule (the “Rule”) on Joint-Employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Slated to take effect on December 26, 2023, the Rule returns to and expands on the Obama era Browning-Ferris test, scrapping the NLRB’s 2020 Joint Employer test for the sole reason that the current Board disagrees with the 2020 test, and setting up a potential showdown with the Supreme Court over the “major questions” doctrine and the scope of the NLRB’s administrative authority.

The Final Rule Summarized

 Under the new Rule, any entity that shares or codetermines one or more of a group of employees’ “essential terms and conditions of employment” will be considered a joint employer of the employees along with any other entity controlling that work, that is their “primary employer.” Those “essential terms and conditions of employment” as listed in a new NLRB Fact Sheet are:

  1. wages, benefits, and other compensation;
  2. hours of work and scheduling;
  3. assignment of duties to be performed;
  4. supervision of the performance of duties;
  5. work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods of the performance of duties and the grounds for discipline;
  6. tenure of employment, including hiring and discharge; and
  7. working conditions related to the safety and health of employees.

The Rule is purported to be grounded in common law agency principles and will apply where control – or potential control – over any of the above terms and conditions is reserved to an entity, irrespective of whether or not such control is actually exercised and whether such control is direct or indirect. The Rule is expected to allow the Board to rely on standard contractual terms, such as those typically found in agreements between temporary agencies and other suppliers of labor and their clients, to make sweeping declarations of joint employer status, regardless of the factual circumstances.  Such findings would obligate putative joint employers to engage in collective bargaining with employee representatives over any of those essential terms and conditions of employment over which they potentially exercise control, even if such control is indirect. While the NLRB’s press release about the Rule asserts that, to make a codetermination, the Board will conduct factual analyses on a case-by-case basis, it is clear that the Rule will effectively make it much easier for the Board to designate common business relationships as instances of joint employment.

Potential Concerns and Consequences

An expanded definition of joint employment is the latest indicator of the current NLRB’s efforts to cast a wider net across the nation’s workforce, organized or not. The effects remain to be fully realized but may place more businesses directly under the Board’s jurisdiction. For example, where a non-unionized business has a relationship with an organized shop that the NLRB deems to constitute a joint employment arrangement, that non-unionized business could find itself a responding party to an unfair labor practices charge brought by representatives of the shop workers.

Accordingly, employers and their vendors or other suppliers of services and/or labor must consider how their relationships may be viewed under the Rule. Agreements should be reviewed for any language that could be construed as establishing forms of worker control that would implicate an entity as a joint employer and might benefit from the addition of language explicitly providing that such arrangements do not create an employment relationship.

Legal challenges to the Rule are expected, and the NLRB’s position may be on shaky ground following the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which called into question the validity of agency action that the Court determines to be a “transformative expansion” of administrative authority and an attempt to answer a “major question” that is better left to elected representatives in Congress rather than to the Executive Branch’s administrative agencies. To be sure, if allowed to stand, the NLRB’s efforts to establish a Joint Employer rule will have significant ripples throughout the U.S. economy. We will keep you informed as this issue winds its way through the courts.

©2023 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more on NLRB’s Joint Employer Rule, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Fed Issues FAQs Clarifying That Credit-Linked Notes Can Serve as Valid Capital Relief Tools for U.S. Banks

On September 28, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) posted three new FAQs to its website regarding Regulation Q (Capital Adequacy of Bank Holding Companies, Savings and Loan Holding Companies, and State Member Banks). The FAQ guidance provides additional clarity on the use of credit-linked notes (“CLNs”) to transfer credit risk and offer capital relief to U.S. banks. While in some respects the FAQs merely confirm positions that the FRB has already taken in regard to individual CLN transactions, these FAQs are nevertheless important inasmuch as they publicly memorialize the FRB’s view of these products as valid capital management tools.

The FAQs speak to two different formats of CLNs: those issued by special purpose vehicles (“SPV CLNs”) and those issued directly by banks (“Bank CLNs”). The FRB’s view of SPV CLNs is relatively straightforward: per the FAQs, the FRB recognizes that properly structured SPV CLNs constitute “synthetic securitizations” for purposes of Regulation Q and that the collateral for such SPV CLNs can serve as a credit risk mitigant that banks can use to reduce the risk-weighting of the relevant assets.

The FRB’s posture toward Bank CLNs, however, is more nuanced.  According to the FRB, unlike SPV CLNs, Bank CLNs do not technically satisfy all of the definitional elements and operational criteria applicable to “synthetic securitizations” under Regulation Q, such that banks that issue Bank CLNs would not be able to automatically recognize the capital benefits of such transactions (as would be the case with properly structured SPV CLNs). The reasons for this are twofold: first, Bank CLNs are not executed under standard industry credit derivative documentation; and second, the issuance proceeds from Bank CLNs generally are owned outright by the issuing bank (rather than held as collateral in which the issuing bank has a security interest). Nevertheless, the FRB recognized that Bank CLNs can effectively transfer credit risk; as such, the FRB is willing to exercise its “reservation of authority” to grant capital relief on a case-by-case basis for Bank CLNs where the only two features of the Bank CLNs that depart from the strictures of Regulation Q are those described above. In other words, Bank CLNs can offer capital relief, but only if the issuing bank specifically requests such relief from the FRB and the FRB decides to grant such relief under its reservation of authority powers.

In his statement dissenting on the issuance of the U.S. Basel III endgame proposed rules—our discussion of which is available here—Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Director Jonathan McKernan argued for increased clarity on the FRB’s position with respect to CLNs in order to provide U.S. banks with better parity in relation to their European counterparts (which routinely issue CLNs in different formats). While these FAQs may not fully address FDIC Director McKernan’s concerns, they do begin to provide some clarity concerning the effective use by banks of CLNs as capital management tools.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Article about by: Daniel Meade , Jed Miller of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more articles on finance, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

FTC and DOJ Propose Significant Changes to US Merger Review Process

On 27 June 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice–Antitrust Division (DOJ) (collectively, the Agencies) announced sweeping proposed changes to the US-premerger notification filing process. The proposed changes mark the first significant overhaul of the federal premerger notification form since its original release in 1978 and would require parties to report

On 27 June 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice–Antitrust Division (DOJ) (collectively, the Agencies) announced sweeping proposed changes to the US-premerger notification filing process. The proposed changes mark the first significant overhaul of the federal premerger notification form since its original release in 1978 and would require parties to reportable transactions to collect and submit significantly more information and documentation as part of the premerger review process. If finalized, the proposed rule changes would likely delay deal timelines by months, requiring significantly more time and effort by the parties and their counsel in advance of submitting the required notification form.

In this alert, we:

  • Provide an overview of the current merger review process in the United States;
  • Describe the proposed new rules announced by the Agencies;
  • Explain the Agencies’ rationale for the new proposed rules;
  • Predict how the proposed new rules could impact parties’ premerger filing obligations, including deal timelines; and
  • Explain what companies should expect over the next several months.

BACKGROUND ON THE HSR MERGER REVIEW PROCESS

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (the HSR Act or “HSR”) requires certain persons making acquisitions of assets, voting securities, and non-corporate interests (i.e., interests in partnerships and limited liability companies) to:

(a)    File premerger notifications with the FTC and DOJ; and

(b)    Wait until the expiration or termination of a waiting period (usually 30 days) before consummating the acquisition.

Most mergers and acquisitions valued in excess of USD$111.4 million fall under the HSR Act subject to size-of-party thresholds in certain cases. Additionally, there are several exemptions that may apply to an otherwise reportable transaction.

The FTC or the DOJ reviews the parties’ HSR filings during the waiting period to determine whether the transaction may substantially lessen competition in violation of the antitrust laws. If, at the end of the waiting period any concerns have not been placated, the reviewing agency may issue a Request for Additional Documents and Information (commonly referred to as a Second Request), a very broad subpoena-like document seeking documents, data, and interrogatory responses from the filers. This tolls the waiting period until both parties substantially comply with the Second Request. The reviewing agency then has an additional 30-day period to decide whether to challenge the transaction in court.

WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES?

On 27 June 2023, the FTC and DOJ announced a number of significant changes to the HSR notification form and filing process, the first such overhaul in almost 45 years. The Agencies released the proposed changes and rationale for the same in a 133-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) that will be published in the Federal Register later this week. While antitrust practitioners are still digesting the full extent of all of the proposed changes, it is clear that they would require parties to submit significantly more information and documentation to the Agencies as part of their HSR notification form. The most notable additional information and documentation includes:

  • Submission of additional deal documents, including draft agreements or term sheets (as opposed to just the preliminary agreement), where a definitive transaction agreement has not yet been executed; draft versions of all deal documents (as opposed to just the final versions); documents created by or for the deal team lead(s) (as opposed to just officers and directors); and verbatim translations of all foreign language documents.
  • Details about acquisitions during the previous 10 years.
  • Identification of and information about all officers, directors, and board observers of all entities within the acquiring person, including the identification of other entities these individuals currently serve, or within the two years prior to filing had served, as an officer, director, or board observer.
  • Identification of and information about all creditors and entities that hold non-voting securities, options, or warrants totaling 10% or more.
  • Disclosure of subsidies (e.g., grants and loans), by certain foreign governments, including North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.
  • Narrative description of the strategic rationale for the transaction (including projected revenue streams), a diagram of the deal structure, and a timeline and narrative of the conditions for closing.
  • Identification and narrative describing horizontal overlaps, both current and planned.
  • Identification and narrative describing supply agreements/relationships.
  • Identification and narrative describing labor markets, as well as submission of certain data on the firms’ workforce, including workforce categories, geographic information on employees, and details on labor and workplace safety violations.
  • Identification of certain defense or intelligence contracts.
  • Identification of foreign jurisdictions reviewing the deal.

WHY ARE THESE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED?

In its press release announcing the proposed new rules, the FTC stated that “[t]he proposed changes to the HSR Form and instructions would enable the Agencies to more effectively and efficiently screen transactions for potential competition issues within the initial waiting period, which is typically 30 days.”1 The FTC further explained:

Over the past several decades, transactions (subject to HSR filing requirements) have become increasingly complex, with the rise of new investment vehicles and changes in corporate acquisition strategies, along with increasing concerns that antitrust review has not sufficiently addressed concerns about transactions between firms that compete in non-horizontal ways, the impact of corporate consolidation on American workers, and growth in the technology and digital platform economies. When the Agencies experienced a surge in HSR filings that more than doubled filings from 2020 to 2021, it became impossible to ignore the changes to the transaction landscape and how much more complicated it has become for agency staff to conduct an initial review of a transaction’s competitive impact. The volume of filings at that time also highlighted the significant limitations of the current HSR Form in understanding a transaction’s competitive impact.2

Finally, the FTC also cited certain Congressional concerns and the Merger Fee Filing Modernization Act of 2022, stating that the “proposed changes also address Congressional concerns that subsidies from foreign entities of concern can distort the competitive process or otherwise change the business strategies of a subsidized firm in ways that undermine competition following an acquisition. Under the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022, the agencies are required to collect information on subsidies received from certain foreign governments or entities that are strategic or economic threats to the United States.”

HOW WILL THESE CHANGES POTENTIALLY IMPACT PARTIES’ HSR FILINGS?

The proposed changes, as currently drafted, would require significantly more time and effort by the parties and their counsel to prepare the parties’ respective HSR notification forms. For example, the proposed new rules require the identification, collection, and submission of more deal documents and strategic documents; significantly more information about the parties, their officers, directors and board observers, minority investments, and financial interests; and narrative analyses and descriptions of horizontal and non-horizontal relationships, markets, and competition. Gathering, analyzing, and synthesizing this information into narrative form will require significantly more time and resources from both the parties and their counsel to comply.

Under the current filing rules, it typically takes the merging parties about seven to ten days to collect the information needed for and to complete the HSR notification form. Under the proposed new rules, the time to gather such information and complete an HSR notification form could be expanded by multiple months.

WHAT IS NEXT?

The Notice will be published in the Federal Register later this week. The public will then have 60 days from the date of publication to submit comments. Following the comment period, the Agencies will review and consider the comments and then publish a final version of the new rules. The new rules will not go into effect until after the Agencies publish the final version of the new rules. This process will likely take several months to complete, and the new rules–or some variation of them–will not come into effect until that time.

While the final form of the proposed rules are not likely to take effect for several months, the Agencies’ sweeping proposed changes to the notification form and filing process are in line with the type of information that the Agencies have been increasingly requesting from parties during the merger review process. Accordingly, parties required to submit HSR filings over the next several months should be prepared to receive similar requests from the Agencies, either on a voluntary basis (e.g., during the initial 30-day waiting period) or through issuance of a Second Request, and they should build into their deal timeline (either pre- or post-signing) sufficient time to comply with these requests.

 

1 “FTC and DOJ Propose Changes to HSR Form for More Effective, Efficient Merger Review,” FTC Press Release, June 27, 2023, available at FTC and DOJ Propose Changes to HSR Form for More Effective, Efficient Merger Review | Federal Trade Commission.  

2 “Q and A on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the HSR Filing Process,” FTC Proposed Text of Federal Register Publication, available at 16 CFR Parts 801 and 803: Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements | Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov).

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates

Administration Continues Overhaul of Endangered Species Act Regulations

On June 22, 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively, the “Services”) published three proposed rules that would significantly revise their regulations implementing several sections of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Primarily, the Services’ proposals focus on amending or reversing several components of the ESA regulations promulgated in 2019 by the prior Administration, including the implementation of Section 4 (listing of species as threatened or endangered and the designation of critical habitat), Section 7 (consultation procedures); and Section 4(d) (application of the “take” prohibitions to threatened species). In addition, and beyond the scope of the 2019 final rules, the Services are proposing revisions to the Section 7 regulations regarding the scope and application of reasonable and prudent measures (“RPM”) and to the Section 4(d) regulations to include certain exceptions for federally recognized Tribes. Comments on the three proposed rules are due by August 21, 2023.

Background

The species and habitat protected under the ESA extend to all aspects of our communities, lands, and waters. There are almost 2,400 species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to ESA Section 4. Critical habitat for one or more species has been designated in all regions of the U.S. and its territories. Through the Section 7 consultation process and “take” prohibitions under Sections 9 and 4(d), the ESA imposes species and habitat protection measures on the use and management of private, federal, and state lands and waters and, consequently, on governmental and private activities.

These proposed rules reflect the Biden Administration’s continuing efforts to reform and revise the Services’ approach to ESA implementation that was adopted by the prior Administration. Pursuant to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, the Services reviewed certain agency actions for consistency with the new Administration’s policy objectives. As part of that review, the Services identified five final rules related to ESA implementation that should be reconsidered. Previously, in 2022, the Services rescinded two of those final rules—the regulatory definition of “habitat” for the purpose of designating critical habitat and the regulatory procedures for excluding areas from critical habitat designations. While these proposed rules reflect the consummation of that initial effort, the Services are currently contemplating additional revisions to other ESA regulations and policies.

Proposed Revisions to the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat

Section 4 of the ESA dictates how the Services list species as threatened or endangered, delist or reclassify species, and designate areas as critical habitat. The proposed rule would make several targeted revisions to these procedures. Notable changes would include:

  • Evaluation of the “foreseeable future” for threatened species: The proposed rule would revise the applicable regulatory framework to state that “[t]he term foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Services can reasonably rely on information about threats to the species and the species’ responses to those threats.” The Services note that this revision is intended to reflect that absolute certainty about utilized information is not necessary, just a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. The Services are also considering whether to rescind the framework for interpreting and implementing the “foreseeable future” in its entirety.
  • Designation of unoccupied critical habitat: The proposed rule would revise the two-step process for determining when unoccupied areas may be designated as critical habitat. proposed rule addresses how specific areas that are unoccupied critical habitats are designated. In part, the Services would remove the requirement that they “will only consider” unoccupied areas to be essential when a designation limited to occupied critical habitat would be inadequate for the conservation of the species. The Services also would remove the provision that an unoccupied area is considered essential when there is reasonable certainty both that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species and that it contains one or more physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
  • Not prudent determinations for critical habitat designation: The proposed rule would remove the justification for making a not prudent determination when threats to a species’ habitat are from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions in a Section 7 consultation. The Services note that this is intended to address the misperception that a designation of critical habitat could be declined for species impacted by climate change.
  • Factors for delisting species: The proposed rule would restore language that delisting is appropriate when the species “is recovered.” The Services would also clarify that the delisting analysis is not limited to the same specific factors or threats that led to the listing of the species.
  • Economic impacts in classification process: The proposed rule would restore the regulatory condition that a species listing determination is to be made “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.”

Proposed Revisions to the Consultation Regulations

The ESA Section 7 consultation requirement applies to discretionary federal agency actions—including federal permits, licenses and authorizations, management of federal lands, and other federal programs. Federal actions that are likely to adversely affect a listed species or designated critical habitat must undergo a formal consultation review and issuance of a biological opinion evaluating whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The biological opinion also evaluates the extent to which “take” of a listed species may occur as a result of the action and quantifies the level of incidental take that is authorized. The proposed rule would make the following notable changes to the applicable regulations:

  • Expanded scope of reasonable and prudent measures: The proposed rule would revise and expand the scope of RPMs that could be included as part of an incidental take statement in a biological opinion. In a change from their prior interpretation, and in addition to measures that avoid or minimize impacts of take, the Services would have discretion to include measures as an RPM that offset any remaining impacts of incidental take that cannot be avoided (e.g., for certain impacts, offsetting measures could include restoring or protecting suitable habitat). The Services also would allow RPMs, and their implementing terms and conditions, to occur inside or outside of the action area. Any offsetting measures would be subject to the requirement that RPMs may only involve “minor changes” to the action, must be commensurate with the scale of the impact, and must be within the authority and discretion of the action agency or applicant to carry out.
  • Revised definition of “effects of the action”: In an effort to clarify that the consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are included within effects of the action relate to both the proposed action and activities that are caused by the proposed action, the proposed rule would add a phrase to the definition to note that it includes “the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action but that are not part of the action.” In addition, the proposed rule would remove provisions at 50 C.F.R. § 402.17, added in 2019, which provide the factors used to determine whether an activity or a consequence is “reasonably certain to occur.”
  • Revised definition of “environmental baseline”: The proposed rule would revise the definition in an effort to more clearly address the question of a federal agency’s discretion over its own activities and facilities when determining what is included within the environmental baseline. The Services note that it is the federal action agency’s discretion to modify the activity or facility that is the determining factor when deciding which impacts of an action agency’s activity or facility should be included in the environmental baseline, as opposed to the effects of the action. The Services also would remove the term “ongoing” from the definition in an effort to clarify that any continuation of a past and present discretionary practice or operation would be in the environmental baseline.
  • Clarification of obligation to reinitiate consultation: The proposed rule would remove the phrase “or by the Service” to clarify that it is the federal agency, and not the Services, that has the obligation to request reinitiating of consultation when one or more of the triggering criteria have been met (and discretionary involvement or control over the action is retained).

Proposed Reinstatement of Blanket Protections for FWS Species Listed as Threatened

Pursuant to the ESA, threatened and endangered species are treated differently with respect to what are often called the “take” prohibitions of the Act. In part, ESA Section 9(a)(1) prohibits the unauthorized take—which is defined as an act “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect”—of an endangered species. In contrast, under Section 4(d) of the ESA, the Secretary may issue a regulation applying any prohibition set forth in Section 9(a)(1) to a threatened species. Historically, FWS applied a “blanket 4(d) rule” that automatically extended all ESA Section 9(a)(1) prohibitions to a threatened species unless a species-specific rule was otherwise adopted. In 2019, FWS revised its approach to align with NMFS’s long-standing practice, which only applies the ESA prohibitions to threatened species on a species-specific basis. The proposed rule would make the following notable changes to FWS’s approach under Section 4(d):

  • Reinstate blanket 4(d) rule: The proposed rule would reinstate the general application of the “blanket 4(d) rule” to newly listed threatened species. As before, FWS would retain the option to promulgate species-specific rules that revise the scope or application of the prohibitions that would apply to threatened species.
  • New exceptions for Tribes: The proposed rule proposed rule would extend to federally recognized Tribes the ability currently afforded to FWS and other federal and state agencies to aid, salvage, or dispose of threatened species. FWS is also considering an additional revision that would extend exceptions to the prohibitions to certain individuals from a federally recognized Tribe’s natural resource agency for take associated with conservation activities pursuant to an approved cooperative agreement that covers the threatened species.

© 2023 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

CFIUS Determines it Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Chinese Land Acquisition

In 2022, Fufeng USA, a subsidiary of Chinese company Fufeng Group, purchased 370 acres near Grand Forks, North Dakota, with the intention of developing the land to build a plant for wet corn milling and biofermentation,[1] prompting opposition from federal and state politicians.[2] North Dakota Senators, North Dakota’s Governor, and Senator Marco Rubio urged the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review the acquisition as a potential national security risk for being located within 12 miles from the Grand Forks Air Force Base, which is home to military drone technology and a space networking center.[3] Following CFIUS’ review of Fufeng’s notice submission, CFIUS determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the transaction. This post summarizes the public information about that CFIUS case and provides observations about the responses by North Dakota and CFIUS in the wake of Fufeng’s proposed investment.

CFIUS Review and Determination

1. Procedural History

In conjunction with rising public opposition to its land acquisition, public reports show that Fufeng USA submitted a declaration to CFIUS on July 27, 2022.[4] North Dakota local news outlet Valley News Live obtained a copy of the CFIUS closing letter to that declaration filing, which stated that CFIUS determined on August 31, 2022 that it lacked sufficient information to assess the transaction and requested that the parties file a full notice.[5] (CFIUS has the option under the regulations to request a full notice filing at the conclusion of the abbreviated 30-day review of a declaration filing.) Based on the CFIUS closing letter to that subsequent notice filing, which was likewise obtained and published by Valley News Live, Fufeng USA submitted a notice on October 17, 2022, and CFIUS subsequently concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the transaction in December 2022.[6]

2. Why CFIUS did not Review under its Part 802 Covered Real Estate Authority

According the CFIUS Letter released by Fufeng to Valley News Live, Fufeng submitted its notice pursuant to 31 C.F.R. Part 800 (“Part 800”), which pertains to covered transaction involving existing U.S. businesses.[7] The closing letter made no reference to the transaction being reviewed as a “covered real estate transaction” under 31 C.F.R. Part 802 (“Part 802”).[8] A reason for this could be that, at the time the case was before CFIUS, the land acquisition by Fufeng USA was not within any of the requisite proximity thresholds and, thus, did not fall within Part 802 authority. Under Part 802, CFIUS has authority over certain real estate transactions involving property in specific maritime ports or airports, or within defined proximity thresholds to identified “military installations” listed in Appendix A to Part 802. Grand Forks Air Force Base was not included in Appendix A at that time, nor was the acquired land within the defined proximity of any other listed military installation. Accordingly, the only way for CFIUS to extend authority would be under its Part 800 authority relating to certain acquisitions of U.S. businesses.

3. CFIUS Determined It Lacked Jurisdiction Under its Part 800 Covered Transaction Authority

CFIUS’ closing letter to Fufeng stated that “CFIUS has concluded that the Transaction is not a covered transaction and therefore CFIUS does not have jurisdiction under 31 C.F.R. Part 800.”[9] Part 800 provides CFIUS with authority to review covered control transactions (i.e., those transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person) or covered investment transactions (i.e., certain non-controlling investments directly or indirectly by a foreign person in U.S. businesses involved with critical technology, critical infrastructure, or the collection and maintaining of US citizen personal data). Greenfield investments, however, inherently do not involve an existing U.S. business. As such, greenfield investments would be outside of CFIUS’ jurisdiction under Part 800. Although the justification underlying CFIUS’ determination regarding Fufeng’s acquisition is not publicly available, CFIUS might have determined that it lacked authority under Part 800 because Fufeng’s purchase of undeveloped land was not an acquisition of a U.S. business, but more likely a greenfield investment.

State and Federal Response

Under state and federal pressure, the City of Grand Forks, which initially approved Fufeng’s development of the corn milling facility, “officially decided to terminate the development agreement between the city and Fufeng USA Inc.” on April 20, 2023.[10] This decision was largely impacted by the U.S. Air Force’s determination that “the proposed project presents a significant threat to national security with both near- and long-term risks of significant impacts to our operations in the area.”[11] As of today, the land appears to still be under the ownership of Fufeng USA.[12]

CFIUS’ determination that it lacked authority drew sharp criticism from state and federal politicians. North Dakota Senator Cramer purported that CFIUS may have determined the jurisdictional question too narrowly and indicated that the determination may prompt federal legislative action.[13] Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) concurred, issuing a statement that permitting the transaction was “dangerous and dumb.”[14] In response to the determination, the Governor of South Dakota announced plans for “legislation potentially limiting foreign purchases of agricultural land” by investigating “proposed purchases of ag land by foreign interests and recommend either approval or denial to the Governor.”[15]

On April 29, 2023, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed Senate Bill No. 2371 into law, which prohibits local development and ownership of real property by foreign adversaries and related entities, effective August 1, 2023. Notably, these entities include businesses with a principal executive offices located in China, as well as businesses with a controlling Chinese interest or certain non-controlling Chinese interest.

On May 5, 2023, the U.S. Department of Treasury, the agency tasked with administering CFIUS, also took steps to expand its authority to cover more real property acquisitions. It published a Proposed Rule that would expand CFIUS covered real estate transaction authority over real restate located with 99 miles of the Grand Forks Air Force Base and seven other facilities located in Arizona, California, Iowa, and North Dakota. See a summary of that Proposed Rule and related implications at this TradePractition.com blog post.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See, Alix Larsen, CFIUS requesting Fufeng USA give more information on corn mill development, Valley News Live (Sep. 1, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/01/cfius-requesting-fufeng-usa-give-more-information-corn-mill-development/.

[2] See Letter from Gov. Doug Burgum to Secretaries Janet Yellen and Lloyd Austin (Jul. 25, 2022), https://www.governor.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Gov.%20Burgum%20letter%20urging%20expedited%20CFIUS%20review%2007.25.2022.pdf; Letter from Senators Marco rubio, John Hoeven, and Kevin Cramer to Secretaries Janet Yellen and Lloyd Austin (Jul. 14, 2022), https://senatorkevincramer.app.box.com/s/2462nafbszk2u6yosy77chz9rpojlwtl.

[3] See id; Eamon Javers, Chinese Company’s Purchase of North Dakota Farmland Raises National Security Concerns in Washington, CNBC, July 1, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/chinese-purchase-of-north-dakota-farmland-raises-national-security-concerns-in-washington.html.

[4] See, Alix Larsen, CFIUS requesting Fufeng USA give more information on corn mill development (Sep. 1, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/01/cfius-requesting-fufeng-usa-give-more-information-corn-mill-development/.

[5] See id.

[6] See Stacie Van Dyke, Fufeng moving forward with corn milling plant in Grand Forks (Dec. 13, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/12/14/fufeng-moving-forward-with-corn-milling-plant-grand-forks/.

[7] See id.

[8] Id.

[9] See id.

[10] Bobby Falat, Grand Forks officially terminates Fufeng Deal (Apr. 20, 2023), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2023/04/20/grand-forks-officially-terminates-fufeng-deal/.

[11] News Release, Senator John Hoeven, Hoeven, Cramer: Air Force Provides Official Position on Fufeng Project in Grand Forks, (Jan. 31, 2023), https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/news/news-releases/hoeven-cramer-air-force-provides-official-position-on-fufeng-project-in-grand-forks.

[12] See, Meghan Arbegast, Fufeng Group owes Grand Forks County more than $2,000 in taxes for first half of 2022 (Apr. 5, 2023), https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/local/fufeng-group-owes-grand-forks-county-more-than-2-000-in-taxes-for-first-half-of-2022.

[13] See Josh Meny, Senator Cramer discusses latest on Fufeng in Grand Forks (Dec. 27, 2022), https://www.kxnet.com/news/kx-conversation/senator-cramer-discusses-latest-on-fufeng-in-grand-forks/.

[14] Press Release, Senator Marco Rubio, Rubio Slams CFIUS’s Refusal to Take Action Regarding Fufeng Farmland Purchase (Dec. 14, 2022) https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/12/rubio-slams-cfius-s-refusal-to-take-action-regarding-fufeng-farmland-purchase.

[15] Jason Harward, Gov. Kristi Noem takes aim at potential Chinese land purchases in South Dakota (Dec. 13, 2022),https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/south-dakota/gov-kristi-noem-takes-aim-at-potential-chinese-land-purchases-in-south-dakota.

© Copyright 2023 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more Global Legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review. 

How a Zero-Day Flaw in MOVEit Led to a Global Ransomware Attack

In an era where our lives are ever more intertwined with technology, the security of digital platforms is a matter of national concern. A recent large-scale cyberattack affecting several U.S. federal agencies and numerous other commercial organizations emphasizes the criticality of robust cybersecurity measures.

The Intrusion

On June 7, 2023, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) identified an exploit by “Threat Actor 505” (TA505), namely, a previously unidentified (zero-day) vulnerability in a data transfer software called MOVEit. MOVEit is a file transfer software used by a broad range of companies to securely transfer files between organizations. Darin Bielby, the managing director at Cypfer, explained that the number of affected companies could be in the thousands: “The Cl0p ransomware group has become adept at compromising file transfer tools. The latest being MOVEit on the heels of past incidents at GoAnywhere. Upwards of 3000 companies could be affected. Cypfer has already been engaged by many companies to assist with threat actor negotiations and recovery.”

CISA, along with the FBI, advised that “[d]ue to the speed and ease TA505 has exploited this vulnerability, and based on their past campaigns, FBI and CISA expect to see widespread exploitation of unpatched software services in both private and public networks.”

Although CISA did not comment on the perpetrator behind the attack, there are suspicions about a Russian-speaking ransomware group known as Cl0p. Much like in the SolarWinds case, they ingeniously exploited vulnerabilities in widely utilized software, managing to infiltrate an array of networks.

Wider Implications

The Department of Energy was among the many federal agencies compromised, with records from two of its entities being affected. A spokesperson for the department confirmed they “took immediate steps” to alleviate the impact and notified Congress, law enforcement, CISA, and the affected entities.

This attack has ramifications beyond federal agencies. Johns Hopkins University’s health system reported a possible breach of sensitive personal and financial information, including health billing records. Georgia’s statewide university system is investigating the scope and severity of the hack affecting them.

Internationally, the likes of BBC, British Airways, and Shell have also been victims of this hacking campaign. This highlights the global nature of cyber threats and the necessity of international collaboration in cybersecurity.

The group claimed credit for some of the hacks in a hacking campaign that began two weeks ago. Interestingly, Cl0p took an unusual step, stating that they erased the data from government entities and have “no interest in exposing such information.” Instead, their primary focus remains extorting victims for financial gains.

Still, although every file transfer service based on MOVEit could have been affected, that does not mean that every file transfer service based on MOVEit was affected. Threat actors exploiting the vulnerability would likely have had to independently target each file transfer service that employs the MOVEit platform. Thus, companies should determine whether their secure file transfer services rely on the MOVEit platform and whether any indicators exist that a threat actor exploited the vulnerability.

A Flaw Too Many

The attackers exploited a zero-day vulnerability that likely exposed the data that companies uploaded to MOVEit servers for seemingly secure transfers. This highlights how a single software vulnerability can have far-reaching consequences if manipulated by adept criminals. Progress, the U.S. firm that owns MOVEit, has urged users to update their software and issued security advice.

Notification Requirements

This exploitation likely creates notification requirements for the myriad affected companies under the various state data breach notification laws and some industry-specific regulations. Companies that own consumer data and share that data with service providers are not absolved of notification requirements merely because the breach occurred in the service provider’s environment. Organizations should engage counsel to determine whether their notification requirements are triggered.

A Call to Action

This cyberattack serves as a reminder of the sophistication and evolution of cyber threats. Organizations using the MOVEit software should analyze whether this vulnerability has affected any of their or their vendors’ operations.

With the increasing dependency on digital platforms, cybersecurity is no longer an option but a necessity in a world where the next cyberattack is not a matter of “if” but “when;” it’s time for a proactive approach to securing our digital realms. Organizations across sectors must prioritize cybersecurity. This involves staying updated with the latest security patches and ensuring adequate protective measures and response plans are in place.

© 2023 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Biden Administration Revitalizes and Advances the Federal Government’s Commitment to Environmental Justice

On April 21, 2023, the eve of Earth Day, President Biden continued his Administration’s spotlight on environmental justice issues by signing Executive Order 14096, entitled “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.”

This Executive Order prioritizes and expands environmental justice concepts first introduced in President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 12898. The 1994 Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of federal programs on minority and low-income populations.

One of President Biden’s early actions [covered here], Executive Order 14008, introduced the whole-of-government approach for all executive branch agencies to address climate change, environmental justice, and civil rights. It created the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council, comprising of 15 federal agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Department of Justice. Biden’s new Executive Order expands the whole-of-government approach by: (1) adding more agencies to the Environmental Justice Interagency Council and (2) establishing a new White House Office of Environmental Justice within the White House Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”). The new Office of Environmental Justice will be led by a Federal Chief Environmental Justice Officer and will coordinate the implementation of environmental justice policies across the federal government.

This new Executive Order emphasizes action over aspiration by directing federal agencies to “address and prevent disproportionate and adverse environmental health and impacts on communities.” It charges federal agencies with assessing their environmental justice efforts and developing, implementing, and periodically updating an environmental justice strategic plan. These new Environmental Justice Strategic Plans and Assessments are to be submitted to the CEQ and made public regularly, including through an Environmental Justice Scorecard, a new government-wide assessment of each federal agency’s efforts to advance environmental justice.

Specifically, defining “environmental justice” is one strategy to make concrete what federal agency efforts will address. Under the Executive Order, “environmental justice” means “the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people: (i) are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and (ii) have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.” This definition adds “Tribal affiliation” and “disability” to the protected categories and expands the scope of effects, risks, and hazards to be protected against. The Fact Sheet accompanying the Executive Order explains that the definition’s use of the phrase “disproportionate and adverse” is a simpler, modernized equivalent of the phrase “disproportionately high and adverse” originally used in Executive Order 12898. Whether this change in language from “disproportionately high” to “disproportionate” will affect agency decision-making is something to watch for in the future.

As part of the government-wide mission to achieve environmental justice, the Executive Order explicitly directs each agency to address and prevent the cumulative impacts of pollution and other burdens like climate change, including carrying out environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), by:

  • Analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of federal actions on communities with environmental justice concerns;
  • Considering the best available science and information on any disparate health effects (including risks) arising from exposure to pollution and other environmental hazards, such as information related to the race, national origin, socioeconomic status, age, disability, and sex of the individuals exposed; and,
  • Providing opportunities for early and meaningful involvement in the environmental review process by communities with environmental justice concerns potentially affected by a proposed action, including when establishing or revising agency procedures under NEPA.
    The Executive Order also emphasizes transparency by directing agencies to ensure that the public, including members of communities with environmental justice concerns, has adequate access to information on federal activities. These activities include planning, regulatory actions, implementation, permitting, compliance, and enforcement related to human health or the environment when required under the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and any other environmental statutes with public information provisions.

CEQ is expected to issue interim guidance by the end of the year and more long-term guidance by the end of 2024 as to implementing the Executive Order’s directives. It is too early to know whether any directives will go through rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. But with a presidential election looming and ongoing budget negotiations between the White House and Congress that propose modest cuts to NEPA as part of permitting reform, CEQ’s efforts may be limited to guidance for now.

© 2023 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

For more environmental legal, news, visit the National Law Review here.

Biden Administration Initiates Ocean Justice Strategy

On June 8, 2023, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), on behalf of the Ocean Policy Committee (OPC), announced the development of a new “Ocean Justice Strategy.” This federal government-wide initiative marks the latest in a long series of Biden administration efforts to promote environmental justice (EJ). The first step is a request for public input through July 24, 2023.

Overview

    • Per CEQ, the Ocean Justice Strategy aims to identify barriers and opportunities to incorporate environmental justice principles into the federal government’s ocean-related activities. It will encompass all recent Biden administration Executive Orders and policies relating to environmental justice, including the Ocean Climate Action Plan. The Strategy will serve as a guide to the federal government’s objectives for guiding “ocean justice” activities. It will propose “equitable and just practices to advance safety, health, and prosperity for communities residing near the ocean, the coasts, and the Great Lakes.”
    • The OPC, a Congressionally-created office dedicated to developing federal ocean policy, will draft the Ocean Justice Strategy with input from stakeholders, including Tribes, state and local governments, the private sector, and the public.
    • The Biden Administration previewed its support for ocean justice last year when it announced a commitment to extending environmental justice efforts to coastal and marine contexts. NOAA Fisheries followed suit by releasing its first-ever Equity and Environmental Justice Strategy, which puts equity and environmental justice at the forefront of their effort to steward the nation’s ocean resources and habitats.
    • The Strategy and its underlying EJ-based principles could lead to future policy changes, including for industries such as offshore energy, real estate, shipping, ports, and fisheries. This new effort is somewhat unique among EJ initiatives in that it targets activities that inherently occur along the nation’s coasts or far away from communities. The Strategy could emerge in a variety of directions, from identifying favored or disfavored ocean-based activities to layering additional processes for certain types of proposed projects.

Request for Public Input

OPC seeks public input on the following topics to develop the Ocean Justice Policy:

    • Definitions (namely, what is “ocean justice”)
    • Barriers to ocean justice
    • Opportunities for ocean justice
    • Research and knowledge gaps
    • Tools and practices (e.g., how to use existing tools such as CEJST, EJScreen, and EnviroAtla, in addition to developing new tools)
    • Partnerships and collaboration with external stakeholders
    • Any additional considerations

In addition to these comments, OPC will consider comments submitted in response to its previous request for information on the Ocean Climate Action Plan to inform the development of the Ocean Justice Strategy.

© 2023 Beveridge & Diamond PC

For more Environmental Legal News, visit the National Law Review.