Administrative & Regulatory Archives - Page 17 of 110

Global Regulatory Update for April 2024

WEBINAR – Registration Is Open For “Harmonizing TSCA Consent Orders with OSHA HCS 2012”: Register now to join The Acta Group (Acta^®) and Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C^®) for “Harmonizing TSCA Consent Orders with OSHA HCS 2012,” a complimentary webinar covering case studies and practical applications of merging the requirements for consent order language on the Safety Data Sheet (SDS). In this webinar, Karin F. Baron, MSPH, Director of Hazard Communication and International Registration Strategy, Acta, will explore two hypothetical examples and provide guidance on practical approaches to compliance. An industry perspective will be presented by Sara Glazier Frojen, Senior Product Steward, Hexion Inc., who will discuss the realities of managing this process day-to-day.

SAVE THE DATE – “TSCA Reform — 8 Years Later” On June 26, 2024: Save the date to join Acta affiliate B&C, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health for a day-long conference reflecting on the challenges and accomplishments since the implementation of the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments and where the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) stands today. This year, the conference will be held in person at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health (and will be livestreamed via YouTube). Continuing legal education (CLE) credit will be offered in select states for in-person attendees only. Please check ELI’s event page in the coming weeks for more information, including an agenda, CLE information, registration, and more. If you have questions in the meantime, please contact Madison Calhoun (calhoun@eli.org).

AUSTRALIA

Changes To Categorization, Reporting, And Recordkeeping Requirements For Industrial Chemicals Will Take Effect April 24, 2024: The Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) announced regulatory changes to categorization, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements will start April 24, 2024. For the changes to take effect, the Industrial Chemicals (General) Rules 2019 (Rules) and Industrial Chemicals Categorisation Guidelines will be amended. According to AICIS, key changes to the Rules include:

Written undertakings replaced with records that will make compliance easier;
Greater acceptance of International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) names for reporting and recordkeeping;
Changes to the categorization criteria to benefit:
- Local soap makers;
- Introducers of chemicals in flavor and fragrance blends; and
- Introducers of hazardous chemicals where introduction and use are controlled; and
Strengthening criteria and/or reporting requirements for health and environmental protection.

AICIS announced final changes to the Industrial Chemicals Categorisation Guidelines that will take effect April 24, 2024. According to AICIS, the changes include:

Refinement of the requirement to check for hazardous esters and salts of chemicals on the “List of chemicals with high hazards for categorisation” (the List);
Provision to include highly hazardous chemicals to the List based on an AICIS assessment or evaluation;
Expanded options for introducers to demonstrate the absence of skin irritation and skin sensitization; and
More models for in silico predictions and an added test guideline for ready biodegradability.

AICIS states that it will publish a second update to the Guidelines in September 2024 due to industry stakeholders’ feedback that they need more time to prepare for some of the changes. It will include:

For the List: add chemicals based on current sources and add the European Commission (EC) Endocrine Disruptor List (List I) as a source; and
Refined requirements for introducers to show the absence of specific target organ toxicity after repeated exposure and bioaccumulation potential.

CANADA

Canada Provides Updates On Its Implementation Of The Modernized CEPA: As reported in our June 23, 2023, memorandum, Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, received Royal Assent on June 13, 2023. Canada is working to implement the bill through initiatives that include the development of various instruments, policies, strategies, regulations, and processes. In April 2024, Canada updated its list of public consultation opportunities:

Discussion document on the implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (winter 2024);
Proposed Watch List approach (spring/summer 2024);
Proposed plan of chemicals management priorities (summer 2024);
Draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing (summer/fall 2024);
Draft implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment under CEPA (summer/fall 2024);
Discussion document for toxic substances of highest risk regulations (winter 2025); and
Discussion document on the restriction and authorization of certain toxic substances regulations (winter/spring 2025).

EUROPEAN UNION (EU)

ECHA Checks More Than 20 Percent Of REACH Registration Dossiers For Compliance: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced on February 27, 2024, that between 2009 and 2023, it performed compliance checks of approximately 15,000 Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) registrations, representing 21 percent of full registrations. ECHA states that it met its legal target for dossier evaluation, which increased from five percent to 20 percent in 2019. ECHA notes that for substances registered at quantities of 100 metric tons or more per year, it has checked compliance for around 30 percent of the dossiers.

According to ECHA, in 2023, it conducted 301 compliance checks, covering more than 1,750 registrations and addressing 274 individual substances. ECHA “focused on registration dossiers that may have data gaps and aim to enhance the safety data of these substances.” ECHA sent 251 adopted decisions to companies, “requesting additional data to clarify long-term effects of chemicals on human health or the environment.” ECHA states that during the follow-up evaluation process, it will assess the incoming information for compliance. ECHA will share the outcome of the incoming data with the EU member states and the EC to enable prioritization of substances. ECHA will work closely with the member states for enforcement of non-compliant dossiers. Compliance of registration dossiers will remain a priority for ECHA. In 2024, ECHA will review the impact of the Joint Evaluation Action Plan, aimed at improving REACH registration compliance, and, together with stakeholders, develop new priority areas on which to focus. More information is available in our March 29, 2024, blog item.

Council Of The EU And EP Reach Provisional Agreement On Proposed Regulation On Packaging And Packaging Waste: The Council of the EU announced on March 4, 2024, that its presidency and the European Parliament’s (EP) representatives reached a provisional political agreement on a proposal for a regulation on packaging and packaging waste. The press release states that the proposal considers the full life-cycle of packaging and establishes requirements to ensure that packaging is safe and sustainable by requiring that all packaging is recyclable and that the presence of substances of concern is minimized. It also includes labeling harmonization requirements to improve consumer information. In line with the waste hierarchy, the proposal aims to reduce significantly the generation of packaging waste by setting binding re-use targets, restricting certain types of single-use packaging, and requiring economic operators to minimize the packaging used. The proposal would introduce a restriction on the placing on the market of food contact packaging containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) above certain thresholds. The press release notes that to avoid any overlap with other pieces of legislation, the co-legislators tasked the EC to assess the need to amend that restriction within four years of the date of application of the regulation.

EP Adopts Position On Establishing System To Verify And Pre-Approve Environmental Marketing Claims: The EP announced on March 12, 2024, that it adopted its first reading position on establishing a verification and pre-approval system for environmental marketing claims to protect citizens from misleading ads. According to the EP’s press release, the green claims directive would require companies to submit evidence about their environmental marketing claims before advertising products as “biodegradable,” “less polluting,” “water saving,” or having “biobased content.” Micro enterprises would be exempt from the new rules, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) would have an extra year to comply compared to larger businesses. The press release notes that the EP also decided that green claims about products containing hazardous substances should remain possible for now, but that the EC “should assess in the near future whether they should be banned entirely.” The new EP will follow up on the file after the European elections that will take place in June 2024.

On April 3, 2024, a coalition of industry associations issued a “Joint statement in reference to ‘the ban of green claims for products containing hazardous substances’ in the Green Claims Substantiation Directive (GCD).” The associations “fully support the principle that consumers should not be misled by false or unsubstantiated environmental claims and share the EU’s objective to establish a clear, robust and credible framework to enable consumers to make an informed choice.” The associations express concern that the proposed prohibition of environmental claims for products containing certain hazardous substances “will run contrary to the objective of the Directive to enable consumers to make sustainable purchase decisions and ensure proper substantiation of claims.” According to the associations, for a number of consumer products, “the reference to ‘products containing’ would encompass substances that would have intrinsic hazardous properties,” implying that there would be a ban of making any environmental claim(s), “even if such trace amounts of unavoidable and unintentional impurities and contaminants are present in these products.” The signatories include the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products; the European Brands Association; APPLiA; the Association of Manufacturers and Formulators of Enzyme Products; CosmeticsEurope; the European Power Tool Association; the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry; the International Fragrance Association; LightingEurope; the International Natural and Organic Cosmetics Association; Toy Industries of Europe; Verband der Elektro- und Digitalindustrie; and the World Federation of Advertisers.

ECHA Clarifies Next Steps For PFAS Restriction Proposal: ECHA issued a press release on March 13, 2024, to outline how the Scientific Committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) will progress in evaluating the proposal to restrict PFAS in Europe. As reported in our February 13, 2023, memorandum, the national authorities of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden submitted a proposal to restrict more than 10,000 PFAS under REACH. The proposal suggests two restriction options — a full ban and a ban with use-specific derogations — to address the identified risks. Following the screening of thousands of comments received during the consultation, ECHA states that it is clarifying the next steps for the proposal. According to ECHA, RAC and SEAC will evaluate the proposed restriction together with the comments from the consultation in batches, focusing on the different sectors that may be affected.

In tandem, the five national authorities who prepared the proposal are updating their initial report to address the consultation comments. This updated report will be assessed by the committees and will serve as the foundation for their opinions. The sectors and elements that will be discussed in the next three committee meetings are:

March 2024 Meetings

Consumer mixtures, cosmetics, and ski wax;
Hazards of PFAS (only by RAC); and
General approach (only by SEAC).

June 2024 Meetings

Metal plating and manufacture of metal products; and
Additional discussion on hazards (only by RAC).

September 2024 Meetings

Textiles, upholstery, leather, apparel, carpets (TULAC);
Food contact materials and packaging; and
Petroleum and mining.

More information is available in our March 18, 2024, blog item.

ECHA Adopts And Publishes CoRAP For 2024-2026: On March 19, 2024, ECHA adopted and published the Community rolling action plan (CoRAP) for 2024-2026. The CoRAP lists 28 substances suspected of posing a risk to human health or the environment for evaluation by 11 Member State Competent Authorities. The CoRAP includes 11 newly allocated substances and 17 substances already included in the previous CoRAP 2023-2025 update, published on March 21, 2023. For 11 out of these 17 substances, ECHA notes that the evaluation year has been postponed, mainly to await submission of new information requested under dossier evaluation. Of the 28 substances to be evaluated, ten are to be evaluated in 2024, 13 in 2025, and five in 2026. The remaining substance of the 24 substances listed in the previous CoRAP was withdrawn as its evaluation is currently considered to be a low priority. According to ECHA, for this substance, a compliance check is needed first. ECHA states that the substance can be placed in the CoRAP list again, if after the conclusion of the dossier evaluation process, concerns remain beyond what can be clarified through dossier evaluation. ECHA has posted a guide for registrants that need to update their dossiers with new relevant information such as hazard, tonnages, use, and exposure.

Comments On Proposals To Identify New SVHCs Due April 15, 2025: A public consultation on proposals to identify two new substances of very high concern (SVHC) will close on April 15, 2024. The substances and examples of their uses are:

Bis(α,α-dimethylbenzyl) peroxide: This substance is used in products such as pH-regulators, flocculants, precipitants, and neutralization agents; and
Triphenyl phosphate: This substance is used as a flame retardant and plasticizer in polymer formulations, adhesives, and sealants.

UNITED KINGDOM (UK)

HSE Publishes UK REACH Work Programme For 2023/24: In February 2024, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published its UK REACH Work Programme 2023/24. The Work Programme sets out how HSE, with the support of the Environment Agency, will deliver its regulatory activities to meet the objectives and timescales set out in UK REACH. Alongside these activities, HSE and the Environment Agency will engage with stakeholders. The Work Programme includes the following deliverables and target deadlines:

Topic	Deliverable	Target
Substance evaluation	Evaluate substances in the Rolling Action Plan (RAP)	Evaluate one
Authorization	Complete the processing of received applications within the statutory deadline (this includes comments from public consultation and REACH Independent Scientific Expert Pool (RISEP) input)	100 percent
SVHC identification	Undertake an initial assessment of substances submitted for SVHC identification under EU REACH during 2022/23 and consider if they are appropriate for SVHC identification under UK REACH	Assess up to five
Regulatory management options analysis (RMOA)	Complete RMOAs initiated in 22/23 Initiate RMOAs for substances identified as priorities	Up to ten Up to five
Restriction	Complete ongoing restriction opinions Begin Annex 15 restriction dossiers Initiate scoping work for restrictions	Two One Two

HSE Opens Call For Evidence On PFAS In FFFs: HSE is working with the Environment Agency to prepare a restriction dossier that will assess the risks of PFAS in firefighting foams (FFF). HSE will propose restrictions, if necessary, to manage any significant risks identified. To help compile the dossier, HSE opened a call for evidence. HSE states that it would like stakeholders to identify themselves as willing to engage in further dialogue throughout the restrictions process. In particular, it would like to hear from stakeholders with relevant information on PFAS (or alternatives) in FFFs, especially information specific to Great Britain (GB). Regarding relevant information, HSE is interested in all aspects of FFFs, including:

Manufacture of FFFs: Substances used, process, quantities;
Import of FFF products of all types: Quantities, suppliers;
Use: Quantities, sector of use, frequency, storage on site, products used;
Alternatives to PFAS in FFF: Availability, cost, performance in comparison to PFAS-containing foams, barriers to switching;
Hazardous properties: SDSs, new studies on intrinsic properties and exposure, recommended risk management measures;
Environmental fate: What happens to the FFF after it is used, where does it go;
Waste: Disposal requirements, recycling opportunities, remediation; and
Standards: Including product-specific legislation, performance, certification.

HSE states that the call for evidence targets companies (manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers) and professional users of FFFs, trade associations, environmental organizations, consumer organizations, and any other organizations and members of the public holding relevant information. HSE intends to publish the final dossier, including any restriction proposals, on its website in March 2025. Interested parties will also then be able to submit comments on any proposed restriction.

New GB BPR Data Requirements Will Apply To Applications Submitted In October 2025: The Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2024, which update the data requirements in Annexes II and III of the GB Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR), were laid in Parliament on March 13, 2024, and came into force on April 6, 2024. The legislation updates some of the data requirements to reflect developments in science and technology. These include the use of alternative testing approaches to determine some hazardous properties that previously relied on animal testing. HSE held a public consultation on the proposed changes in 2023 and has posted a report on the outcome of the consultation. The new data requirements will apply to applications received 18 months after the legislation came into force (October 6, 2025) and do not apply to existing applications. HSE will provide further guidance on the changes in the future.

by: ACTA Group of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more on Global Regulation, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Curb Your Pollution: EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution

EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and the Polymers and Resins Industries

On April 9, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final rule that is touted to provide critical health protections to hundreds of thousands of people living near chemical plants. The final rule, signed March 28, 2024, will reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including the toxic chemicals chloroprene and ethylene oxide (EtO). The rule implements sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act.

When fully implemented, the final rule will reduce more than 6,200 tons a year of over 100 air toxics – including EtO and chloroprene – from covered equipment and processes at plants in Texas and Louisiana, along with plants in other parts of the country including Delaware, New Jersey, and the Ohio River Valley.

As part of the final rule, the EPA is also issuing new emissions limits for dioxins and furans. This will reduce more than 23,000 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) each year.

EPA’s final rule will also require plants to conduct fenceline monitoring if any of the equipment or processes covered by the rule use, produce, store, or emit EtO, chloroprene, benzene, 1,3- butadiene, ethylene dichloride or vinyl chloride. Fenceline monitoring is used to measure levels of pollution in the air around the perimeter of a facility. The fenceline monitoring provisions of the rule require owners and operators to ensure that levels of these six pollutants remain below a specified “action level.” Fenceline monitoring provides owners and operators the flexibility to determine what measures to take to remain below the action level, while ensuring that they are effectively controlling toxic air pollution.

The final rule will significantly reduce emissions of air toxins, especially those that are potentially harmful for surrounding communities. According to the EPA, these emission reductions will yield significant reductions in lifetime cancer risk attributable to these air pollutants, in addition to other health benefits.

Department of Justice Ramps Up Investigations of Private Clubs that Received PPP Loans

As Varnum’s government investigations team has previously discussed, (link) the COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) resulted in millions of businesses receiving emergency loans. The PPP’s hurried implementation, coupled with confusion among recipients over eligibility requirements, created an environment ripe for both fraud and the issuance of loans to ineligible recipients. Over the past few years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has focused on fraud by among other things, opening civil investigations under the False Claims Act and bringing criminal charges against PPP loan recipients who misused loan proceeds on luxury items. But recently, the DOJ has shifted its focus to a new category of PPP recipients: social clubs that may have been technically ineligible for the loans they received.

The opportunity for improper loans to social clubs comes about because of a technical wrinkle in how Congress wrote the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. In this Act, Congress made social clubs (i.e. golf clubs, tennis clubs, yacht clubs) organized under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(7) eligible for PPP loans. However, Congress incorporated an agency regulation that prohibited loans to “private clubs and businesses which limited the numbers of memberships for reasons other than capacity.” The result is that social clubs that limit their number of members for any reason besides capacity were technically ineligible for PPP loans.

In recent months, the DOJ has issued Civil Investigation Demands (CIDs) to clubs that it believes might not have been eligible for PPP loans. These CIDs are demands for documents and interrogatory answers and often relate to employment records, income statements, the membership admission process, prospective members’ applications, the club’s governance, and membership information. CIDs are expansive and the government can use the club’s answer in future civil or criminal proceedings.

Given the DOJ’s new focus, clubs should review their PPP paperwork now and consult with an attorney to determine whether their loan was properly issued. If the clubs find technical violations, proactively approaching the government through counsel may be beneficial. If a club receives a CID, it should immediately contact an attorney to begin preparing the appropriate response.

For more news on Paycheck Protection Program Fraud Enforcement, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

Will Hemp Save the World, Before the Government Kills It?

There is a great line in the wonderful film Charlie Wilson’s War, where Charlie Wilson (played remarkably by the inimitable Tom Hanks) describes the successful, if relatively covert, involvement of the United States government in the Soviet-Afghan War: “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we f***d up the endgame.”

With the next Farm Bill somewhere on the horizon, I believe we are approaching a similar moment for the future of hemp. I believe the future of hemp is glorious and that it can change the world. What will we do to the endgame?

This is an analysis about the current state of hemp and whether that industry will revolutionize the world before the government relegates it back to the ash heap of history. It just so happens to dovetail with my personal experience representing clients in connection with the hemp business.

In the Beginning…

Back in the “stone age” (circa 2017) when I decided I wanted to be a cannabis lawyer, I began with a focus on hemp. [As a brief aside, telling people in Alabama you practice cannabis law in 2017 must have been what Noah felt like when he was telling people it was about to start raining.]

The 2014 Farm Bill, which for the first time legalized “industrial hemp” as distinct from marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and allowed state agricultural departments and universities to license the production of hemp, cracked the door for a nascent and limited hemp market, and it was a remarkable time to advise new hemp operators and investors about how to maximize this opportunity within the contours of the law.

At the same time, I was regularly receiving calls from existing clients, colleagues within the firm, and strangers about how their non-cannabis companies should conduct themselves when approached by hemp companies who wanted to do business with them. The latter category included banks, insurance companies, real estate companies, and myriad companies who had questions about how their employees’ use of hemp interplayed with the companies’ existing drug testing policies. Most of the time the companies were reluctant to have anything to do with hemp, but the conversations were interesting, and it was clear that most companies realized the landscape was changing. It was the Wild West, and I was having a ball.

Rocket Fuel

Enter the 2018 Farm Bill and the explosion of the hemp industry. The 2018 Farm Bill dropped the word “industrial” and defined “hemp” as:

the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

In addition to removing the limitations from the 2014 Farm Bill licensing, the 2018 Farm Bill also moved oversight authority from the Department of Justice and DEA to the USDA and FDA.

The 2018 Farm Bill was a tectonic shift, and we recognized the new regime’s potential almost immediately, predicting the following:

Increased “smart” money and research. Because hemp has been a Schedule I substance along with marijuana for decades, many sophisticated sources of funding have abstained from ﬁnancing the industry. This placed hemp at a competitive disadvantage to other commodities and prevented hemp from reaching its full potential. Now that hemp can be manufactured and sold without substantial legal risks, look for the money to ﬂow toward this underserved sector. Publicly traded companies, private equity ﬁrms, venture capitalists and other investment groups will all take signiﬁcant stakes in both the manufacturing and selling of hemp and hemp-derived products. In addition to traditional commercial development eﬀorts, much of this cash is likely to be spent to hire top researchers to develop proprietary strands of hemp to meet a range of product applications and to take steps to protect the resulting intellectual property.
Explosion of hemp and hemp-derived products. Fueled in large part by this injection of ﬁnancing from sophisticated investors, there is likely to be an explosion in the ways that hemp is used. Hemp already has hundreds — if not thousands — of known uses, and that number should grow substantially once the industry is exposed to the market forces that come with smart money and increased research. The biggest winner may be the hemp-derived CBD business. Hemp-derived CBD is a compound believed to have signiﬁcant therapeutic beneﬁts without an appreciable psychoactive component. The Washington Post has reported that “dozens of studies have found evidence that [CBD] can treat epilepsy as well as a range of other illnesses, including anxiety, schizophrenia, heart disease, and cancer.” One industry analysis predicts that the hemp-CBD market alone could hit $22 billion by 2022. The health and wellness sector should see particular hemp-related activity and growth in the coming years.
Increased ancillary services provided to hemp-related businesses. Because hemp has been included within the deﬁnition of marijuana under federal law for decades, most banks, law ﬁrms and other service providers have avoided providing services to hemp businesses to avoid the risk of charges of money laundering or conspiring to violate state and federal drug laws. The absence of such service providers has fostered a great deal of uncertainty in an area where certainty and clarity have been sorely needed. With hemp’s new legal status, look for professional service providers to enter the market in 2019 and beyond. Of course, entities looking to provide services to hemp-related businesses should take adequate precautions to ensure those businesses are only producing federally legal hemp.
Consolidation and integration. An interesting phenomenon in “legal” marijuana states has been the rapid consolidation and integration of marijuana growers, processors and dispensaries. Some states have mandated vertical integration (e.g., the growers are the sellers) through regulation. And a number of large cannabis companies have acquired grow operations or multi-unit dispensaries rather than establish a cannabis presence in a state from scratch. The hemp industry is likely to follow a similar path, both through government regulation and because larger companies are likely to seek to obtain suﬃcient quantities of hemp through consolidation and vertical integration. Accordingly, attorneys and investors should anticipate signiﬁcant merger and acquisition activity in the coming years.
Federal regulations and state regimes. The 2018 Farm Bill does not create an entirely unregulated playing ﬁeld for hemp. Over the coming months, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration will issue regulations implementing the 2018 Farm Bill. State governments will also unveil plans governing the testing, labeling and marketing of hemp-related products, as well as the licensing and monitoring of hemp-related businesses.

I’m proud to say that we were pretty much on the money with these projections, and countless studies and data confirm that hemp can be a viable product with countless form factors that help shape the global economy.

That is when I realized that I might be able to make a career as a cannabis lawyer.

The Good with the Bad

Of course, the development of the hemp industry has not been without controversy – in fact it may be the controversy that has spurred much of the development.

I would be lying to you if I told you that every hemp or hemp-derived product was designed with the best of intentions or contained appropriate mechanisms to ensure consumer safety. There are certainly hemp-derived products on the market that have not been subjected to sufficient product development and testing, and that are being marketed in ways that rightfully should concern policymakers and the public. Novel, psychoactive cannabinoids that fall within the bounds of the terms, if perhaps not the spirit, of the Farm Bill fill the shelves of stores around the country with little to no mechanisms for enforcement. That should change, and Americans should have confidence that the products made available to them are safe and effective.

In response to this proliferation, a number of states have enacted rules and regulations restricting the production and sale of certain hemp-derived cannabinoids. A number of those rules – for example, age and purity restrictions for psychoactive cannabinoids – seem well-intentioned, and we expect to see more of those unless and until the federal government takes further action.

On occasion, however, it appears that the motivations of policymakers may be less pure. It is no secret amongst those in the cannabis industry that marijuana licensees in states that have legalized marijuana are no fans of the unregulated hemp-derived psychoactive industry. After all, marijuana companies are subject to astronomical taxes and endure regulatory costs that make turning a profit far more difficult than if they were able to offer a product that offered a somewhat similar “high” without the institutional overhead and headwinds. Florida may be the clearest and most recent example. With adult-use marijuana widely expected to become law in Florida soon, the state legislature recently passed a law largely prohibiting delta-8 and delta-10.

On the other hand, it would be wrong, even lazy, to suggest that the development of hemp-based products has been without substantial benefits to society as a whole. Entrepreneurs are developing hemp-based substitutes for any number of the most common products used around the globe, meaning that the addressable market for hemp is everyone on earth and beyond.

A younger version of me once wrote, in comparing the addressable market for marijuana to that of hemp:

Hemp, on the other hand, has the potential to dwarf marijuana in the global market. Unlike its sister plant, hemp has the capacity to replace products we use every day without us even realizing it. For example, hemp can provide a substitute for concrete, plastic, fuel, automotive parts, clothes, etc. These are products nearly all consumers need but they neither realize nor care what the products are made of, as long as they work. In that way, while the market for marijuana is limited to consumers looking to purchase marijuana, the market for hemp includes anyone who purchases products that can be manufactured by hemp. In part for these reasons, experts predict four to five times growth in the industrial hemp market in the next five years.

I stand by those words. I am convinced that hemp can change the world.

But I am equally convinced that local, state, and federal governments can, without the appropriate consideration for hemp’s benefits, relegate the plant back to its prohibition era status and deny the world its many benefits. The policy choices made by state governments, and perhaps most importantly by the federal government during the next Farm Bill, could fundamentally alter the future of hemp. Will it be a soon-forgotten shooting star that dazzled the world for a decade and then burned out, or will we look back at the past decade as the renaissance of one of civilization’s oldest and most versatile plants?

Conclusion

I’ll end where I began because Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work is revered by the Budding Trends community (and anyone with taste), and because the film’s ominous conclusion is a message for anyone who wants to see the hemp industry thrive in the years ahead.

As Hanks’ character celebrates the Afghan defeat of the Soviets, the hardened CIA analyst played by Hoffman offers this parable:

On his sixteenth birthday the boy gets a horse as a present. All of the people in the village say, “Oh, how wonderful!”

The Zen master says, “We’ll see.”

One day, the boy is riding and gets thrown off the horse and hurts his leg. He’s no longer able to walk, so all of the villagers say, “How terrible!”

The Zen master says, “We’ll see.”

Some time passes and the village goes to war. All of the other young men get sent off to fight, but this boy can’t fight because his leg is messed up. All of the villagers say, “How wonderful!”

The Zen master says, “We’ll see.”

The message behind this story is pretty clear. We’re prone to jump to conclusions about whether something is “good” or “bad.” We are especially quick to label something as “bad.” The reality is that things can be either good or bad, both good and bad, or neither. When it comes to whether Congress and the states will recognize hemp’s great potential, I guess we’ll see.

Big Labor Got Bigger in 2023

While union numbers on the whole generally declined in 2023, some of the biggest American unions were able to augment their numbers in spite of the downward trend.

According to a recent report from Bloomberg, “Many of the nation’s largest unions including the Teamsters and West Coast dock workers saw membership gains last year, signaling potential for new organizing even as the labor movement struggles to tighten its grip on the workforce, according to new federal data.

“The numbers paint a more optimistic portrait of unions’ ability to recruit new members, particularly in the service and manufacturing sectors, even in the face of declining density nationwide. Two dozen groups added members in 2023, a year marked by high-profile strikes and labor stoppage threats across industries. The additions overcome losses from seven other peer unions, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis of disclosures filed with the US Department of Labor last week.”

For context, union membership rates across private and public sector workers overall dropped to 10 percent in 2023, down from 10.1 percent in 2022. For comparison, when this data first became available in 1983, that number was at 20.1 percent – or double where unions are now. In the private sector, only 6 percent of those workers now belong to unions as of 2023.

Nevertheless, this report showing gains by some of the nation’s largest labor organizations, combined with historic union organizing numbers and the seemingly growing number of union election successes, may move those union membership percentages upward by the close of 2024. In addition, recent changes by the National Labor Relations Board to the union election process may further help unions bolster their ranks. We’ll see how this all shakes out by year’s end. Stay tuned.

The SEC Speaks–And Fails to Defend Mandatory Climate Disclosures

During the opening remarks of the two-day SEC Speaks Conference, Chairman Gensler failed to express any statement of support in connection with the SEC’s recently promulgated rule on mandatory climate disclosures. (Instead, his speech focused on a number of other topics, including clearinghouse rules and proposed regulations.) In contrast, Republican SEC Commissioner Uyeda devoted the entirety of his speech to offering critiques of the SEC’s newly enacted mandatory climate disclosure rule.

While most of Commissioner Uyeda’s criticisms had been previously voiced on other occasions, certain legal arguments achieved greater prominence in these remarks. In particular, Commissioner Uyeda emphasized the concept of materiality, noting that “[t]he significant changes in the final rule reflect a recognition that no disclosure rule that veers from materiality is likely to survive a court challenge,” and opining that “changes to selected portions of the rule text intended to mitigate legal risk do not necessarily convert a climate change activism rule to a material risk disclosure rule.” There was also a focus on procedural concerns, including a potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act due to “the failure to repropose the rule” since “the changes were so significant,” and that “the fail[ure] to consider [the] rule’s economic consequences [renders] the adoption of the rule arbitrary and capricious.” Finally, Commissioner Uyeda compared the climate disclosure rule to the previously enacted conflict minerals rule (which was mandated by Congress), stating that “public companies and investors are stuck with a mandatory disclosure rule that deviates from financial materiality but fails to resolve the social purpose for which it was adopted.” Each of these arguments should be expected to feature in the upcoming litigation in the Eighth Circuit concerning the legality of the SEC’s climate disclosure rule.

Still, the failure by Chairman Gensler and his fellow Democratic Commissioners to offer a robust public defense of the climate disclosure rule may simply reflect a shifting of priorities now that the rule has been enacted. Notably, just a few days ago–on March 22, 2024–Chairman Gensler forcefully defended the SEC’s climate disclosure rule at a conference hosted by Columbia Law School, where his entire speech advocated the concept of mandatory disclosures and stated that the SEC’s climate disclosure rule “enhance[d] the consistency, comparability, and reliability of [climate-related] disclosures.” Moreover, it is altogether possible that a speech on the second day of the conference might offer a rejoinder to the varied critiques of the climate disclosure rule.

Unlike the conflict minerals rule, which was mandated by Congress, the Commission has acted on its own volition to adopt a climate disclosure rule that seeks to exert societal pressure on companies to change their behavior. It is the Commission that determined to delve into matters beyond its jurisdiction and expertise. In my view, this action deviates from the Commission’s mission and contravenes established law.

https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/uyeda-remarks-sec-speaks-040224

Navigating the EU AI Act from a US Perspective: A Timeline for Compliance

After extensive negotiations, the European Parliament, Commission, and Council came to a consensus on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (the “AI Act”) on Dec. 8, 2023. This marks a significant milestone, as the AI Act is expected to be the most far-reaching regulation on AI globally. The AI Act is poised to significantly impact how companies develop, deploy, and manage AI systems. In this post, NM’s AI Task Force breaks down the key compliance timelines to offer a roadmap for U.S. companies navigating the AI Act.

The AI Act will have a staged implementation process. While it will officially enter into force 20 days after publication in the EU’s Official Journal (“Entry into Force”), most provisions won’t be directly applicable for an additional 24 months. This provides a grace period for businesses to adapt their AI systems and practices to comply with the AI Act. To bridge this gap, the European Commission plans to launch an AI Pact. This voluntary initiative allows AI developers to commit to implementing key obligations outlined in the AI Act even before they become legally enforceable.

With the impending enforcement of the AI Act comes the crucial question for U.S. companies that operate in the EU or whose AI systems interact with EU citizens: How can they ensure compliance with the new regulations? To start, U.S. companies should understand the key risk categories established by the AI Act and their associated compliance timelines.

I. Understanding the Risk Categories
The AI Act categorizes AI systems based on their potential risk. The risk level determines the compliance obligations a company must meet. Here’s a simplified breakdown:

Unacceptable Risk: These systems are banned entirely within the EU. This includes applications that threaten people’s safety, livelihood, and fundamental rights. Examples may include social credit scoring, emotion recognition systems at work and in education, and untargeted scraping of facial images for facial recognition.
High Risk: These systems pose a significant risk and require strict compliance measures. Examples may include AI used in critical infrastructure (e.g., transport, water, electricity), essential services (e.g., insurance, banking), and areas with high potential for bias (e.g., education, medical devices, vehicles, recruitment).
Limited Risk: These systems require some level of transparency to ensure user awareness. Examples include chatbots and AI-powered marketing tools where users should be informed that they’re interacting with a machine.
Minimal Risk: These systems pose minimal or no identified risk and face no specific regulations.

II. Key Compliance Timelines (as of March 2024):

Time Frame	Anticipated Milestones
6 months after Entry into Force	Prohibitions on Unacceptable Risk Systems will come into effect.
12 months after Entry into Force	This marks the start of obligations for companies that provide general-purpose AI models (those designed for widespread use across various applications). These companies will need to comply with specific requirements outlined in the AI Act. Member states will appoint competent authorities responsible for overseeing the implementation of the AI Act within their respective countries. The European Commission will conduct annual reviews of the list of AI systems categorized as “unacceptable risk” and banned under the AI Act. The European Commission will issue guidance on high-risk AI incident reporting.
18 months after Entry into Force	The European Commission will issue an implementing act outlining specific requirements for post-market monitoring of high-risk AI systems, including a list of practical examples of high-risk and non-high risk use cases.
24 months after Entry into Force	This is a critical milestone for companies developing or using high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III of the AI Act, as compliance obligations will be effective. These systems, which encompass areas like biometrics, law enforcement, and education, will need to comply with the full range of regulations outlined in the AI Act. EU member states will have implemented their own rules on penalties, including administrative fines, for non-compliance with the AI Act.
36 months after Entry into Force	The European Commission will issue an implementing act outlining specific requirements for post-market monitoring of high-risk AI systems, including a list of practical examples of high-risk and non-high risk use cases.
By the end of 2030	This is a critical milestone for companies developing or using high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III of the AI Act, as compliance obligations will be effective. These systems, which encompass areas like biometrics, law enforcement, and education, will need to comply with the full range of regulations outlined in the AI Act. EU member states will have implemented their own rules on penalties, including administrative fines, for non-compliance with the AI Act.

In addition to the above, we can expect further rulemaking and guidance from the European Commission to come forth regarding aspects of the AI Act such as use cases, requirements, delegated powers, assessments, thresholds, and technical documentation.

Even before the AI Act’s Entry into Force, there are crucial steps U.S. companies operating in the EU can take to ensure a smooth transition. The priority is familiarization. Once the final version of the Act is published, carefully review it to understand the regulations and how they might apply to your AI systems. Next, classify your AI systems according to their risk level (high, medium, minimal, or unacceptable). This will help you determine the specific compliance obligations you’ll need to meet. Finally, conduct a thorough gap analysis. Identify any areas where your current practices for developing, deploying, or managing AI systems might not comply with the Act. By taking these proactive steps before the official enactment, you’ll gain valuable time to address potential issues and ensure your AI systems remain compliant in the EU market.

White House Publishes Revisions to Federal Agency Race and Ethnicity Reporting Categories

On March 28, 2024, the White House unveiled revisions to the federal statistical standards for race and ethnicity data collection for federal agencies, adding a new category and requiring a combined race and ethnicity question that allows respondents to select multiple categories with which they identify.

Quick Hits

The White House published an updated SPD 15 with revisions to the race and ethnicity data collection standards for federal agencies.
The revisions change the race and ethnicity inquiry by making it one question and encouraging respondents to identify under multiple categories.
Federal agencies have eighteen months to submit an agency action plan for compliance and must bring all of their data collections and programs into compliance within five years.
The race and ethnicity categories are widely used across federal agencies and serve as a model for employers for their own data collection and required diversity reporting.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published updates to its Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (SPD 15) with major revisions, the first since 1997. The revisions took immediate effect and were formally published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2024.

OMB stated that the revisions—which come after a two-year review process that included input from more than 20,000 comments, ninety-four listening sessions, three virtual town halls, and a Tribal consultation—are “intended to result in more accurate and useful race and ethnicity data across the federal government.”

Background

In 2022, OMB convened the Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standard (Working Group) to review the race and ethnicity standards in the 1997 SPD 15 with the goal of “improving the quality and usefulness of Federal race and ethnicity data.” The race and ethnicity standards are used by federal contractors and subcontractors for affirmative action programs (AAPs) and by employers for federal EEO-1 reporting and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) surveys. Many employers further use the race and ethnicity categories for their own recordkeeping purposes, and federal agencies use the categories for various surveys and federal forms.

In January 2023, OMB published the Working Group’s proposals, observing that the 1997 SPD 15 standards might no longer accurately reflect the growing diversity across the United States and evolving understandings of racial and ethnic identities. During the pendency of the review process, several justices of the Supreme Court of the United States criticized the imprecision of the 1997 race and ethnicity categories throughout the Court’s 237-page opinion in the June 2023 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College (SFFA decision) case, in which the Court struck down certain race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.

Revisions to SPD 15

The updated standards closely follow the Working Group’s final recommendations and revise SPD 15 to require that data collection:

combine the race and ethnicity inquiry into one question that allows respondents to select multiple categories with which they identify,
add “Middle Eastern or North African” (MENA) as a “minimum reporting category” that is “separate and distinct from the White’ category,” and
“require the collection of more detailed data as a default.”

Under the 1997 standards, respondents were required to first select an ethnicity (i.e., “Hispanic or Latino” or “Not Hispanic or Latino”), and second, select a race category (i.e., “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” or “White”).

The revised race and ethnicity categories for minimum reporting are:

“American Indian or Alaska Native”
“Asian”
“Black or African American”
“Hispanic or Latino”
“Middle Eastern or North African”
“Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander”
“White”

The updated SPD 15 further revises some terminology and definitions used and provides agencies with guidance on the collection and presentation of race and ethnicity data pursuant to SPD 15. Additionally, the update instructs federal agencies to begin updating their surveys and forms immediately and to complete and submit an AAP, which will be made publicly available, to comply with the updated SPD 15 within eighteen months. Federal agencies will have five years to bring all data collections and programs into compliance.

OMB noted that “the revised SPD 15 maintains the long-standing position that the race and/or ethnicity categories are not to be used as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.”

Looking Ahead

The new race and ethnicity categories have implications for employers as they use these categories for federal reporting compliance and their own recordkeeping purposes, including potentially influencing their own diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Covered federal contractors and subcontractors must also use the categories in meeting their affirmative action obligations.

Still, the updated SPD 15 adds only one new minimum category. OMB recognized the tension with attempting to “facilitate individual identity to the greatest extent possible while still enabling the creation of consistent and comparable data.” One of the issues OMB identified as needing further research is “[h]ow to encourage respondents to select multiple race and/or ethnicity categories when appropriate by enhancing question design and inclusive language.” The agency is also establishing an Interagency Committee on Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards that will conduct further research and regular reviews of the categories every ten years, though OMB may decide to review SPD 15 again at any time.

Employers may want to take note of the revisions to SPD 15 as these changes will directly impact many employers’ compliance and recordkeeping obligations. They may also want to be on the lookout for additional guidance from federal agencies, such as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the EEOC, on when and how to implement the standards. Relevant agencies will have to take action before employers will be required to implement the new standards. In the meantime, employers may want to consider whether to use the government’s new or existing categories when shaping their DEI initiatives, as racial and ethnic identities and terminology continue to evolve.

PTO to Patent Examiners: Make Interpretation of Means-Plus-Function Claims Clear in the Record

On March 18, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memorandum to patent examiners addressing means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations and how to clearly articulate, in the prosecution record, the PTO’s interpretation of such claim limitations. The goal of the memorandum is to ensure consistency in connection with the examination of such limitations, provide both the applicant and the public with notice regarding the claim interpretation used by the patent examiner, and provide the applicant an opportunity to advance a different claim interpretation early in the prosecution.

As stated in 35 U.S.C. §112(f), “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” The memorandum does not suggest any changes in interpretation of the statute.

One aspect of the memorandum is to remind examiners of the resources and guidance available when examining means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations, specifically MPEP §§ 2181-2187 and refresh training. In accordance with the guidance, the primary steps when examining such claim elements include:

Determining whether a claim limitation invokes § 112(f)
Ensuring the record is clear with respect to invoking § 112(f)
Evaluating the description necessary to support a § 112(f) claim limitation under §§ 112(a) and (b).

To determine whether a claim limitation invokes §112(f), the guidance instructs examiners to employ the three-prong analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I. Using this analysis, recitation of the terms “means” or “step” in association with functional language, rather than structure, material or acts for performing that function, should be interpreted as claim limitations invoking § 112(f). However, where these terms are accompanied by structure, materials or acts for performing the function, § 112(f) is not invoked. On the other hand, a limitation reciting functional language along with a generic placeholder term instead of “means,” which fails to recite sufficiently definite structure for performing the function, would nonetheless invoke § 112(f), according to a proper analysis. Examples of such generic placeholders include “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for” and “system for.”

An important caveat in the memorandum states that “[e]stablishing the interpretation of § 112(f) limitations in writing during prosecution is critical in supporting the agency goal of establishing a clear prosecution record.” The guidance advises examiners that form paragraphs are available in support of meeting this objective, which serve to inform “the applicant, the public, and the courts . . . as to the claim construction the examiner used during prosecution. This further informs the applicant, the public, and the courts (and the PTO for any post-grant review procedures) as to how the examiner searched and applied prior art based on the examiner’s interpretation of the claim.”

The memorandum further emphasizes the need to evaluate whether claims under §112(f) meet the written description and enablement requirements of § 112(a) and the definiteness requirement of § 112(b). Regarding the latter, the specification must clearly disclose a structure that is clearly linked to or associated with the function, which would be understood by one skilled in the art to perform the entire recited function. Further, “[f]or computer-implemented § 112(f) claim limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function . . . [and] sufficiency of the disclosure of the algorithm must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”

The memorandum further states that an indefinite § 112(f) claim limitation “based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure that performs the entire claimed function will also lack adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim under § 112(a).” Thus, in any § 112(f) analysis, an examiner must determine whether the specification establishes possession of the claimed invention and whether sufficient information is provided to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention.

For further details, see the memorandum here and the Federal Register notice here.

Recent Updates to State and Federal Climate Disclosure Laws

Last year, California became the first state to pass laws requiring companies to make disclosures about their greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions as well as the risks that climate change poses for their businesses and their plans for addressing those risks. These new laws now face funding and legal hurdles that are delaying their implementation.

While California’s new laws navigate these challenges, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted its own final climate disclosure rule on March 6. Formally entitled The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors (“SEC Rule”), it requires public companies to make disclosures about the climate-related risks that have materially impacted, or are reasonably likely to have a material impact on, a registrant’s business strategy, operations, or financial condition, and also to disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions. The SEC Rule is significantly scaled-back from what the SEC originally proposed in March 2022; most notably, it does not require disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions. It too faces legal challenges.

California’s New Laws[1]

On October 7, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law two sweeping climate disclosure bills, Senate Bill 253 (“SB 253”), the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 261 (“SB 261”), the Climate-Related Risk Act.

Under SB 253, companies that do business in California and have more than $1 billion in annual revenue will be required to disclose emissions data to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) each year, starting in 2026. The new law will affect more than 5,400 companies. Under the new law, CARB can levy fines of up to $500,000 per year for violations thereunder. The new reporting requirements apply to both public and private companies, unlike the SEC Rule, which applies only to certain public companies.

Under SB 261, companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue will be required to disclose on a biennial basis how climate change impacts their business, including reporting certain climate-related financial risks and their plans for addressing those risks. These disclosures also begin in 2026 and will affect roughly 10,000 companies.

Funding Hurdles

Funding is necessary for CARB to develop and implement regulations for both climate disclosure laws, as well as to review, administer, and enforce the new laws. To implement SB 253, CARB estimated that it required $9 million in the 2024-25 fiscal year and $2 million in the 2025-26 fiscal year. For SB 261, CARB estimated that it needed an aggregate of $13.7 million over the 2024-25 and 2025-26 fiscal years to identify covered entities, establish regulations, and develop a verification program.

Governor Newsom’s $291.5 billion budget proposal for the 2024-25 fiscal year did not allocate any funding for the implementation of the new laws. The sponsors of the two laws, SB 253’s Senator Scott Wiener and SB 261’s Senator Henry Stern, immediately released a statement sharply critical of this aspect of the Governor’s budget proposal.[2] With limited exceptions, the budget proposal defers all new discretionary spending decisions to the spring, pending input from the legislature, with a final spending plan expected in July of 2024.

The budget process in California can be a lengthy negotiation. The Governor proposes a budget, but then must work with the Legislature to develop the final budget. In this regard, it is important to note that Senator Wiener was appointed to chair the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year. Thus, it’s possible that funding will be provided to implement the laws, though CARB already faced an aggressive set of deadlines for developing the regulations.

Legal Challenges

Some companies, including tech giants like Apple and Salesforce, want the new rules implemented quickly. Large businesses may have an interest in implementing the legislation expeditiously for the benefit of operational certainty and because they have the resources to absorb costs that their smaller competitors cannot. Other companies view the new rules as needlessly burdensome and are committed to halting the legislation in its tracks.

In January, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the American Farm Bureau Federation, California Chamber of Commerce, Central Valley Business Federation, Los Angeles County Business Federation and Western Growers Association in filing a lawsuit^[3]in federal district court challenging the climate disclosure laws under the theory that they violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and are preempted by federal law.

According to the complaint, the climate disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by “forc[ing] thousands of companies to engage in controversial speech that they do not wish to make, untethered to any commercial purpose or transaction…for the explicit purpose of placing political and economic pressure on companies to “encourage” them to conform their behavior to the political wishes of the State.” The plaintiffs argue that, in the event that the State seeks to compel a business to speak noncommercially on controversial political matters, such action shall be presumed by a reviewing court to be unconstitutional unless the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The plaintiffs also allege that the new climate disclosure laws are not narrowly tailored to further any legitimate interest of the state, let alone a compelling one.

The lawsuit also contends that the federal Clean Air Act preempts California’s ability to regulate GHG emissions beyond its jurisdictional borders. According to the plaintiffs, the new laws seek to regulate out-of-state emissions “through a novel program of speech regulation.” The complaint further argues that, because the new disclosure requirements operate as de facto regulations of GHG emissions nationwide, they “run headlong” into the Dormant Commerce Clause and broader principles of federalism. The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin California from implementing or enforcing the new rules, thereby making them null and void.

A more serious preemption challenge may be that the California climate disclosure laws are preempted by the SEC Rule. The issue was addressed during the March 6 SEC hearing (discussed below), and it’s been reported that SEC General Counsel Megan Barbero answered that “nothing” in the Rule “expressly preempts any state law.” However, she added that the issue could arise as a question of “implied preemption,” which “would be determined by a court in a future judicial proceeding.” The question would be whether the SEC has “occupied the field” to such an extent that it preempts state rules in the space. Those would be questions of fact largely turning on how the climate laws are being applied and enforced, and thus any such challenge is likely to await CARB’s implementation of the laws.

The SEC Rule

On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted the final SEC Rule which will require public companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in registration statements and annual reports. The final SEC Rule requires registrants to disclose material climate-related risks, activities undertaken to mitigate or adapt to such risks, information regarding the board of directors’ oversight of climate-related risks and management of material climate-related risks, and information about climate-related targets or goals that are material to the company’s business, operations, or financial condition.

To add transparency to investors’ assessments of certain climate-related risks, the SEC Rule also requires disclosure of material Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions, the filing of an attestation report in connection thereof, and disclosure of impacts that severe weather events and other climate-related conditions have on financial statements, including costs and losses. The final SEC Rule includes a phased-in compliance period for all registrants, with compliance dates ranging from fiscal year 2025-26 to 2031-32, depending on the registrant’s filer status and the content of the disclosure. In general, the SEC Rule requires less than the California climate disclosure laws, as Senator Wiener observed[4].

Key Takeaways

Implementation and/or enforcement of SB 253 and SB 261 is delayed for the time being due to a lack of funding, and thus the roll-out of the regulatory regime for the two laws appears likely to slip, such that the laws’ 2026 compliance deadlines may also slip.
The lawsuit challenging SB 253 and SB 261 adds some uncertainty to the process of ensuring compliance with climate disclosure requirements, and may cause further delay.
The delayed implementation of the new laws affords companies additional time to develop a compliance strategy. Due to the lessened scope of the SEC Rule, companies that are prepared to comply with the California laws are likely to be prepared to comply with the SEC Rule. And implementation of the SEC Rule may be delayed by legal challenges as well, thereby creating more time for companies to develop a compliance strategy.

FOOTNOTES

[1] A prior article describing these laws in more detail is here.

[2] See Senators Wiener & Stern Respond to Governor Pausing Funding To Implement Landmark Climate Laws | Senator Scott Wiener (ca.gov)

[3] Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Cal. Air Resources Board, et al. (Cal. Central Dist., Western Div.) (Case No. 2:24-cv-00801).

[4] See Senator Wiener Responds to Watered Down SEC Climate Rule: “California’s Climate Leadership is More Critical than Ever” | Senator Scott Wiener).

Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Global Regulatory Update for April 2024

Like this:

Curb Your Pollution: EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution

Like this:

Department of Justice Ramps Up Investigations of Private Clubs that Received PPP Loans

Like this: