Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Companies Gear Up For Mass Production of Cultured Meat

Could cultured meat be available in your U.S. grocery store in the new year? A previous article focused on the topic of “cultured meat” – meat made from the cells of animals and grown in a nutrient medium. While no cultured meat has yet been approved for sale in the U.S., companies are positioning themselves for mass production once needed approvals, licensing, inspections, etc., are obtained.

Earlier this month, Believer Meats broke ground on a $123 million plus facility in Wilson, North Carolina. The facility will be able to produce 10 metric tons of meat a year and will be the largest cultured meat facility in the world. The new facility will be Believer Meats’ second production facility. Last year it opened its first facility in Rehovot, Israel, with the capacity to make 500 kilograms of cultured meat a day. Believer Meats has developed processes to create cultured chicken, beef, pork, and lamb.

Investment in the cultured meat industry has been massive. For example, Believer Meats has $600 million in funding, and its investors include ADM Ventures, part of Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., and Tyson Foods.

Investment in the cultured meat industry has been massive.

So, with all of the investment and building of facilities, is the sale of cultured meat in the U.S. imminent? Cultured meat was first introduced in 2013. The eventual sale of cultured meat in the U.S. seems inevitable, but the timing is not yet clear. Before any cultured meat can be sold in the U.S., the FDA and USDA must approve the processes, license the facilities, inspect the facilities, inspect the meat, and approve labeling for the meat. Recognizing the rapid development of cultured meat products, the FDA established a premarket consultation process for companies to work with the FDA to start the process of regulatory approval for their cultured meat products. This premarket consultation process permits the companies to, voluntarily, work with the FDA, and to share information about their processes. The FDA premarket consultation does not, itself, “approve” the products, but evaluates the information shared by the companies – in order to determine if the meat is safe for human consumption. Specifically, as part of the premarket consultation, the FDA considers the cells used to make the cultured meat, the processes and materials used to create the cultured meat, and the manufacturing controls under which the cultured meat is created.

Recently, UPSIDE Food Inc. became the first cultured meat company to complete the FDA’s premarket consultation process. In November of this year, the FDA issued a No Questions letter to UPSIDE Food Inc. for its cultured chicken. The letter stated that information provided by UPSIDE Food Inc. to the FDA demonstrated that UPSIDE Food Inc.’s cultured chicken is safe and its production process prevents the introduction of contaminants that would adulterate the product. Last year, UPSIDE Food Inc opened a facility in Emeryville, California capable of producing 50,000 pounds of meat per year.

UPSIDE Food Inc.’s No Questions letter from the FDA is just the first step in the regulatory process. Pursuant to a 2019 agreement between the FDA and USDA, the FDA and the USDA will share oversight of the production of cultured meat. In addition to the premarket consultation, FDA will oversee the creation of the cultured meat up until the time of harvest, including licensing facilities, and inspecting the creation of the cultured meat. Inspections will ensure approved processes are being used and that the cultured cells are grown in a fashion that complies with Good Manufacturing Processes and food safety regulations.

When the cultured meat is harvested and processed into its final form, regulatory oversight will shift to the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA. As with traditional meat producers, cultured meat producers will have to apply for Grants of Inspection and be subject to similar inspections and food safety requirements. Labels for the cultured meat will also have to be preapproved by FSIS.

Before Believer Meats can sell any of its products manufactured in the North Carolina facility, Believer Meats will have to navigate the regulatory hurdles necessary to obtain approval of its products for sale to consumers. Believer Meats has indicated that it has been working with the FDA, but the FDA has not yet issued any statement on Believer Meats’ processes or products. However, with the start of construction on the world’s largest cultured meat facility, Believer Meats will be well-positioned to begin commercial production when regulatory approvals are obtained. We will be following this emerging new market and the regulatory rubric designed to oversee these cutting-edge food products.

Article By L. Christine Lawson of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

Click here to read more biotech, food, and drug legal news from the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

What Taxpayers in the U.S. and Abroad Need to Know about FBAR Compliance

United States taxpayers have an obligation to report their foreign financial accounts (i.e., offshore or foreign bank accounts) to the federal government. While there are thresholds that apply, these thresholds are relatively low, so most offshore account holders will need to file reports on an annual basis. One of these reports is the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, more commonly known as an FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report).

For U.S. taxpayers, FBAR compliance is extremely important. This is true for taxpayers residing both domestically and overseas. The FBAR is required for US citizens because foreign banks don’t have the same reporting obligations as US-based institutions. Noncompliance in reporting foreign bank accounts can lead to civil or criminal penalties; and, in many cases, failure to file an FBAR will lead to an examination of the taxpayer’s other recent tax filings as well.

“The obligation to file an FBAR applies to most U.S. taxpayers with offshore bank accounts. While many taxpayers are unaware of the FBAR filing requirement, this unawareness is not an excuse for noncompliance. Taxpayers with delinquent FBARs can face substantial penalties regardless of why they have failed to file.” – Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden P.C.

Technically, FBARs are due on Tax Day along with taxpayers’ annual income tax returns. However, all taxpayers receive an automatic extension to October 15—with no need to file a request and no risk of incurring additional penalties.

10 Key Facts about FBAR Compliance for U.S. Taxpayers

As the extended October 15 FBAR deadline is fast approaching, here is an overview of what taxpayers in the U.S. and abroad need to know:

1. The FBAR Filing Requirement Applies to U.S. Taxpayers Who Hold Foreign Financial Accounts

The FBAR filing requirement applies to U.S. taxpayers who hold foreign financial accounts. It also applies to taxpayers who have “signature or other authority” over these foreign accounts. These obligations exist under the federal Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Taxpayers covered under the BSA must file FBARs with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) annually.

While the FBAR filing requirement applies to most types of foreign financial accounts, there are exceptions. For example, FBAR compliance is not required with respect to accounts:

  • Owned by governmental entities
  • Owned by foreign financial institutions
  • Held at U.S. military banking facilities
  • Held in individual retirement accounts (IRAs)
  •  Held in certain other retirement plans

FinCEN has publicly taken the position that accounts solely holding cryptocurrency also do not qualify as foreign financial accounts for purposes of FBAR compliance. However, FinCEN has also stated that it “intends to propose to amend the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regarding [FBARs] to include virtual currency as a type of reportable account.” As a result, U.S. taxpayers who hold cryptocurrency overseas should continue to review FinCEN’s regulatory announcements to determine if their offshore cryptocurrency accounts will trigger FBAR compliance obligations in the future.

2. The FBAR Reporting Threshold is $10,000

The requirement to file an FBAR applies only to U.S. taxpayers whose foreign financial accounts exceed $10,000 during the relevant tax year. This is an aggregate threshold, meaning that it applies to all foreign financial accounts jointly, and the obligation to file an FBAR is triggered if the aggregate value of a taxpayer’s foreign financial accounts exceeds the $10,000 threshold at any point and for any length of time.

3. U.S. Taxpayers Must File Their FBARs Online

A person residing in the United States who has a financial interest in or signatory power over a foreign financial account is required to file an FBAR if the total value of the foreign financial accounts at any time during the calendar year exceeds $10,000. While U.S. taxpayers have the option to e-file their annual income tax returns, taxpayers must file their FBARs online. Taxpayers can do so through FinCEN’s website.

4. The IRS Enforces FBAR Compliance

Even though U.S. taxpayers must file their FBARs with FinCEN, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for enforcing FBAR compliance. This means that taxpayers that fail to meet their FBAR filing obligations must be prepared to deal with the IRS when it uncovers their delinquent filings. It also means that delinquent filers must follow the IRS’s procedures for coming into voluntary compliance to avoid unnecessary penalties—as discussed in greater detail below.

5. FBAR Filers May Also Need to File IRS Form 8938

In addition to filing an annual FBAR, U.S. taxpayers who own foreign financial accounts may also need to file IRS Form 8938. The obligation to file this form applies to U.S. taxpayers who own foreign financial assets (not solely foreign financial accounts) that exceed the thresholds established under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

6. There are Special Mechanisms for Filing Delinquent FBARs

When individuals learn that they are at risk of facing an IRS audit or investigation due to failure to file an FBAR, their first instinct is often to file any and all delinquent FBARs right away.

However, this is not the IRS’s preferred approach, and it can expose taxpayers to penalties and interest unnecessarily.

The IRS offers two primary mechanisms for U.S. taxpayers to correct FBAR filing deficiencies—one for civil violations and one for criminal violations. The primary mechanism for correcting civil violations is to make a “streamlined filing,” while taxpayers who are at risk for criminal prosecution must make a “voluntary disclosure” to IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS CI).

As the IRS explains, the option to make a streamlined filing is “available to taxpayers certifying that their failure to report foreign financial assets and pay all tax due in respect of those assets did not result from willful conduct on their part.” The ability to make this certification of non- willfulness is critical. If a taxpayer falsely certifies to non-willfulness (or if the IRS determines that a taxpayer’s certification is fraudulent), the IRS can reject the taxpayer’s streamlined filing and pursue criminal enforcement action.

For those who have willfully failed to file FBARs, coming into compliance generally involves using IRS CI’s Voluntary Disclosure Practice (VDP). As stated by IRS CI, “If you have willfully failed to comply with tax or tax-related obligations, submitting a voluntary disclosure may be a means to resolve your non-compliance and limit exposure to criminal prosecution.” However, as IRS CI also states, “[a] voluntary disclosure will not automatically guarantee immunity from prosecution.”

With this in mind, when seeking to correct past FBAR filing failures, U.S. taxpayers need to make informed and strategic decisions. To do so, they should rely on the advice of experienced legal counsel. While streamlined filings and voluntary disclosures both provide protection from prosecution, they offer protection under different circumstances, and taxpayers must follow a stringent set of procedures to secure the available protections.

7. Failure to File an FBAR Can Lead to Civil or Criminal Prosecution

One of the key requirements for securing protection under the IRS’s streamlined filing compliance procedures or the VDP is that the taxpayer must not already be the subject of an IRS audit or investigation. When facing audits and investigations related to FBAR noncompliance, taxpayers must assert strategic defenses focused on avoiding civil or criminal prosecution.

Both the BSA and FATCA provide federal prosecutors with the ability to pursue civil or criminal charges. Typically, civil cases focus on unintentional violations, while prosecutors pursue criminal charges in cases involving intentional efforts to conceal foreign financial assets from the U.S. government. However, prosecutors may choose to pursue civil charges for “willful” violations as well; and, in some cases, asserting a strategic defense will involve focusing on keeping a taxpayer’s case civil in nature.

8. The Penalties for FBAR Non-Compliance Can Be Substantial

Why is it important to keep an FBAR non-compliance case civil? The simple answer is that in civil cases prison time isn’t on the table. Under the BSA, U.S. taxpayers charged with intentionally failing to file an FBAR can face a criminal fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years of federal imprisonment.

But, even in civil cases, a finding of FBAR noncompliance can still lead to substantial penalties. For non-willful violations, taxpayers can face fines of up to $10,000 per violation. For willful violations prosecuted civilly, taxpayers can face fines of up to 50% of the undisclosed account value or $100,000, whichever is greater (subject to a maximum penalty of 100% of the account value).

9. U.S. Taxpayers Who Have Questions or Concerns about FBAR Compliance Should Seek Help

Given the substantial risks of FBAR non-compliance, U.S. taxpayers who have questions or concerns about compliance should seek help promptly. They should consult with an experienced attorney, and they should work closely with their attorney to make informed decisions about their next steps.

10. FBAR Filers Must Keep Records On-Hand

Finally, in addition to filing their FBARS with FinCEN online, U.S. taxpayers who are subject to the BSA must also comply with the statute’s recordkeeping requirements. Minimally, taxpayers must retain the following records for each account they disclose on an FBAR:

  • Account number
  • Account type
  • Name on the account
  • Name and address of the foreign bank holding the account
  • Maximum value of the account during the relevant tax year

According to the IRS, “the law doesn’t specify the type of document to keep with this information,” and taxpayers typically “must keep these records for five years from the due date of the FBAR.”

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

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

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

Office of Science and Technology Policy Requests Public Input on Biotechnology Regulation

  • The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a request for information (RFI) today in which it invites public comment on the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (the “Coordinated Framework”).
  • The Coordinated Framework, which is a Federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology products, was first issued in 1986, updated in 1992— to affirm that federal regulation should focus on characteristics of the product and the environment into which it being introduced, and not on the process by which it is produced—and then updated again in 2017 to clarify the roles of EPA, FDA, and USDA. And, in September of this year, Executive Order 14081 directed the three agencies to clarify and streamline regulations to support the safe of use of biotechnology products.
  • Accordingly, the RFI requests comment on seven questions related to the Coordinated Framework. The questions include a request for comment on identification of any regulatory gaps, inefficiencies, or uncertainties; data or information to improve any identified issues; and new or emerging biotechnology products that the agencies should be prepared to address. Comments to the RFI are due by February 3, 2023. Also, on January 12, 2023, OTSP will host a virtual event in which it will listen to public feedback on the RFI.

Article By Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman

For more food, drug, and biotechnology legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

NLRB Unleashes New Damages Against Labor Law Violators

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB”) issued a decision that that could have profound effect on employers in all industries, regardless if they have a union. In Thrryv, Inc., the NLRB ruled in a 3 to 2 decision that employers who have been found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) can be assessed “consequential damages.” in addition to the more traditional remedies of back pay and reinstatement.   If this case is upheld following a likely appeal, it will rock the employer community in the automotive industry and elsewhere.

The case arises from a unionized marketing company that decided to have a layoff. In the course of negotiating with the company over the layoff, the union representing the employees made various requests for information from the company. The company never provided the requested data. The NLRB determined the company violated the NLRA by refusing to respond to the union’s request for information. The NLRB further found the company violated the act by implementing the layoff without engaging in collective bargaining with the union.

Normally, the NLRB would remedy a violation of this nature by ordering the company to engage in “make whole relief” for the affected workers. Typically, that would involve reinstatement and back pay for the period of time they were wrongfully laid-off. However, in this case, the NLRB boldly went where it has never gone before and ordered the company to compensate the employees for “all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the unfair labor practice.” The NLRB went on to say this would be the new normal to remedy employer violations of the NLRA. Determining the full extent of direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms will invariably require additional hearings in which the parties present evidence. Under this new standard, the type of damages potentially available to affected workers could include such things as out-of-pocket, medical expenses, credit card debt, and any other cause the light off employees incurred while trying to make ends meet.

The two Republican members of the NLRB, Marvin Kaplan, and John Ring filed a dissenting opinion.  The dissent believes that the new remedy laid-out in the majority decision is too broad.  They contend this new standard could subject employers to almost limitless, speculative damages.  The dissenting opinion also notes that this new form of damages goes further than those available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  They question how the NLRB could award such damages without specific statutory authority from Congress.

This case will almost certainly be appealed and it behooves all the employer community to closely follow its track and if the NLRB uses other cases to continue to try to implement these new form of damages.

Article By Mark J. Neuberger of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Warning Sign? A New Round of FDA Warning Letters Over CBD Consumer Confusion May Signal a Shift in Government Enforcement

FDA warning letters are nothing new in the cannabis industry. In fact, we here at Budding Trends have covered this topic a number of times (here, here, and here). Not resigned to playing the hits, however, the FDA issued a new set of warning letters on November 21 that may signal a shift in enforcement posture away from solely targeting companies that market CBD as a potential medical treatment and towards including companies that market their products in ways that could cause consumer confusion. This is a “Warning Sign” that might cause the cannabis industry “A Rush of Blood to the Head,” much like Coldplay’s multi-platinum album that recently celebrated its 20-year anniversary. So, turn back the “Clocks,” book your flight to “Amsterdam,” and indulge us if you will — just not too much.

Congress legalized the production of hemp and hemp-derived products under the 2018 Farm Bill. But federal legalization did not exempt the hemp industry from federal regulation. Indeed, the FDA and FTC retain overlapping enforcement authority over CBD marketing, with the FDA having primary authority over labeling. Far more than “A Whisper,” the FDA and FTC have not been shy about issuing warning letters to hemp companies that fail to follow the FDA’s labeling requirements and guidance.

Since its first set of warning letters to CBD companies in April 2019, the FDA has focused its enforcement activity on companies that market their CBD products as treatment and cures for a variety of diseases and illnesses. But the FDA’s most recent warning letters took a different tack, focusing on potential health risks from long-term CBD use, consumer confusion leading to unintentional or overconsumption of CBD, and CBD products that could be seen as marketed to children.

The basis of the FDA’s five new warning letters was that CBD is neither an authorized food additive nor generally recognized as safe. The FDA noted it had “not found adequate information showing how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm,” and claimed that “scientific studies show” potential harm to the “male reproductive system” and “liver” from long-term CBD use. In the FDA’s words, “[p]eople should be aware of the potential risks associated with the use of CBD products.”

The products highlighted in the warning letters included gummies, fruit snacks, lollipops, cookies, teas, and other beverages. The FDA said these products were targeted because consumers may confuse them for traditional foods or beverages, “which may result in unintentional consumption of overconsumption of CBD.” Further, the FDA noted that gummies, candies, and cookies are especially concerning because they may appeal to children. Likewise, the FDA cited tea, coffee, sparkling water, beverage “shots,” and honey as products similar to traditional food that may confuse consumers into over-consuming CBD.

Keeping its focus on unintended consumption or unintended overconsumption, the FDA also chastised one company for failing to specifically list CBD as an ingredient on the label of its hemp-infused tea. This is particularly important to note for hemp companies, many of which have sought to avoid listing “CBD” on the product labels for full spectrum hemp extracts in an effort to avoid the FDA and FTC’s seemingly CBD-focused enforcement actions.

Given this new enforcement posture, CBD companies may consider avoiding marketing attempts that seek to link CBD products too closely with traditional foods and beverages. This may include limiting references to the similarity of CBD products to traditional ones. And CBD companies should continue to avoid product labels and marketing campaigns that would be enticing to children, especially for CBD products that are in a form children might be likely to consume (such as gummies and candies).

It remains to be seen where the FDA will draw the line between appropriate marketing and marketing that goes too far towards confusing consumers, but, aside from a falsetto Chris Martin, “nobody said it was easy.” Until then, watch this space and remember to follow the marketing dos and don’ts we provided in one of our previous blog posts.

Article By J. Hunter Robinson and Josh Kleppin of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Newly Enacted Federal “Speak Out Act” Limits Use of Some Sexual Harassment NDAs

President Biden has signed into law the federal “Speak Out Act” limiting the enforceability of pre–dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses covering sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes.  The Act takes effect immediately.

The Act places restrictions on the enforceability of pre-dispute:

  • “non-disclosure clauses,” meaning “a provision in a contract or agreement that requires the parties to the contract or agreement not to disclose or discuss conduct, the existence of a settlement involving conduct, or information covered by the terms and conditions of the contract or agreement.”
  •  “non-disparagement clauses,” defined as “a provision in a contract or agreement that requires 1 or more parties to the contract or agreement not to make a negative statement about another party that relates to the contract, agreement, claim, or case.”

Such clauses entered into before a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute arises are rendered unenforceable.  The Act defines covered “sexual assault disputes” as disputes “involving a nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact, as such terms are defined in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code, or similar applicable Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.” Covered “sexual harassment disputes” are defined as disputes “relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.”

A few notes about the Act’s scope and implications:

  • Critically, the Act may have limited implications for many employers for one key reason – the Act only applies to non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses in pre-dispute agreements, meaning that any non-disclosure/non-disparagement clauses in agreements entered into by employers/employees concerning sexual assault or sexual harassment issues after a dispute has arisen are not impacted by the Act.  Because of this, the Act’s protections would not apply to non-disclosure/non-disparagement clauses in separation or settlement agreements executed after sexual harassment or sexual assault allegations are made, but may be subject, of course, to any applicable state or local laws.
  • The Act explicitly excludes from coverage any efforts by employers to protect trade secrets and proprietary information via non-disclosure or non-disparagement provisions.
  • While the Act does apply to non-disclosure/non-disparagement clauses in agreements entered into before December 7, 2022 (the Effective Date), it would not impact clauses entered into before a dispute arose, but where that dispute was active before the Act’s December 7th effective date.
  • Given the above, employers utilizing non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreements at the outset of employment or during the employment lifecycle should consider creating proper carve-outs for sexual assault and sexual harassment issues given the new Act.

Employers should also be aware of other recent developments in this area.  The Speak Out Act also follows the enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which took effect earlier this year (our post on the law can be found here).  That federal law prohibits employers from compelling arbitration of sexual harassment or sexual assault claims and provides employees the option to pursue those claims in other forums.  Employers should also remain aware that, despite the seemingly narrow implications of this new federal law, several states – including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York – have enacted laws in recent years that grant employees broader protections when it comes to certain sexual harassment and discrimination claims, enhancing employees’ abilities to speak out about alleged misconduct.

Article By Corbin Carter and Michael S. Arnold of Mintz

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Beware Before You Flare: EPA Revamps Rulemaking to Pave the Way for Methane Emission Reductions

On November 15, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued the pre-publication version of supplemental proposed rulemaking for reduction of methane emissions in the oil and natural gas sector. The original proposed rule, published on November 15, 2021, sought to strengthen methane standards for new sources (New Source Performance Standards or NSPS), establish nationwide emission guidelines (EG) for regulation of existing sources, and develop new standards for unregulated sources. US EPA ultimately received more than 470,000 public comments. The rules, once finalized, will be included in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOb (NSPS) and Subpart OOOOc (EG).

The agency anticipated a need for additional review in the original proposed rule, in which US EPA stated it would issue supplemental proposed rulemaking under its authority in the Clean Air Act sections 111(b) and (d). While the original rule already had an ambitious target of reducing methane by 74%, the supplemental proposal would reduce methane from covered sources by 87% below 2005 levels. The rule generally governs production and processing (i.e., well sites, compressor stations, and natural gas processing plants) as well as natural gas transmission and storage.

Key changes in the supplemental proposed rule include the following:

  • Super-emitter Response Program: Establishment of a super-emitter response program intended to reduce the risk of such events. Owners or operators that receive certified notifications of emissions greater than 100 kg/hr of methane would be required to take action.
  • Well Closure Plans: EPA will now require owners of well sites to submit a well closure plan that includes steps to plug wells, requires financial assurance, and includes a schedule to complete the closure and perform a final survey.
  • Advanced Methane Detection: In response to comments supporting advanced methane detection technologies, EPA has proposed a matrix where owners and operators have the flexibility to use approved alternative screening approaches with development of a plan and notification to the agency. The agency will further update the proposed protocol for optical gas imaging (OGI) in Appendix K.
  • Leak Inspection: EPA will now require identification and correction of leaks, a source of fugitive emissions, at all well sites, including new and existing. While EPA removed exemptions, the type of leak monitoring will vary depending on site characteristics and equipment in four primary categories: (1) single wellhead-only and small well sites; (2) wellhead-only sites with two or more wellheads; (3) sites with major production and processing equipment; and (4) well sites on the Alaska North Slope.
  • Flares: EPA will require flare flames to be lit at all times. Additionally, in order to flare, owners of oil wells with associated gas will be required to either implement alternatives permitted by the rule (such as routing to a sales line) or certify that alternatives are not safe or technically feasible.
  • Additional Regulated Sources: EPA has added strengthened standards for pneumatic pumps (zero-emission standard), updated standards for wet seal centrifugal compressors, and developed new standards for dry seal centrifugal pumps (currently unregulated).

Given the agency’s significant focus on environmental justice and community outreach, US EPA also seeks to provide more opportunities for vulnerable communities and Tribal communities to participate in the development of state plans. In fact, the agency held a webinar specific to Tribal communities and environmental justice communities on November 17, 2022. During the webinar, US EPA explained how the revised rule requires states to conduct meaningful engagement with vulnerable communities through early outreach and request for input. States developing plans for EG will be required to participate in “timely engagement with pertinent stakeholder representation . . . [i]t must include the development of public participation strategies to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to participation to assure pertinent stakeholder representation.”

The agency is also seeking additional insight from the regulated industry on advanced technologies that can be utilized to reduce methane and utilize associated gas. The original proposed rule requested public comment on a potential standard for oil wells with associated gas that would require owners or operators to route associated gas to a sales line or, alternatively, use it for another beneficial use. During this round of comments, US EPA now seeks to understand emerging technologies “that provide uses for the associated gas in a beneficial manner other than routing to a sales line, using as a fuel, or reinjecting the gas.”

The agency extended the timeline for a final rulemaking to 2023 and has issued new opportunities for public comment and training. Written comments are due to the agency by February 13, 2023 and can be submitted to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317. There will also be a series of public hearings on January 10-11, 2023 that require advance registration. To assist in preparation, US EPA published a document highlighting areas where the agency continues to seek public input. We are prepared to assist clients in engaging with the agency by providing comment and preparing for the final rule to be implemented next year.

Article By Jennifer Tharp of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

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

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Mexico’s Minimum Wage Set to Increase on January 1, 2023

On December 1, 2022, Mexican President Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador announced that, unanimously, the business and labor sectors, as well as the government, had agreed to increase the minimum wage by 20 percent for 2023, which will be applicable in the Free Zone of the Northern Border (Zona Libre de la Frontera Norte or ZLFN), as well as the wage applicable in the rest of the country. The increase will become official when it is published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (Diario Oficial de la Federación).

Before the increase was determined, the Mexican National Commission on Minimum Wages (Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos, or CONASAMI) applied an independent recovery amount (Monto Independiente de Recuperación or MIR) in accordance with the following:

  • MIR for the ZLFN: MXN $23.68
  • MIR for the rest of the country: MXN $15.72

On top of the MIR, the CONASAMI approved a 10 percent increase from the 2022 rate to the daily minimum wage applicable to the ZLFN and the rest of the country, resulting in MXN $312.41 (approximately USD $16.11) for the ZLFN and MXN $207.44 (approximately USD $10.69) for the rest of the country. The new rates would be effective as of January 1, 2023.

The MIR and the 10 percent increase—combined—would represent a 20 percent increase in the daily minimum wage rate which translates to more than MXN $30 per day.

Finally, Secretary of Labor Luisa Maria Alcalde stated that the above increases would directly benefit 6.4 million workers in Mexico.

Article By Pietro Straulino-Rodriguez, Nora M. Villalpando Badillo, and Ana Paula Delsol Espada of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

What You Need to Know About the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch

The Consumer Protection Branch of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is one of the most overlooked and misunderstood parts of the country’s largest law enforcement agency. With a wide field of enforcement, the Branch can pursue civil enforcement actions or even criminal prosecutions against companies based in the United States and even foreign companies doing business in the country.

Here are four things that Dr. Nick Oberheiden, a defense lawyer at Oberheiden P.C., thinks that people and businesses need to know about the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch.

The Wide Reach of “Protecting Consumers”

According to the agency itself, the Consumer Protection Branch “leads Department of Justice enforcement efforts to enforce consumer protection laws that protect Americans’ health, safety, economic security, and identity integrity.” While “identity integrity” is relatively tightly confined to issues surrounding identity theft and the unlawful use of personal data and information, “health,” “safety,” and “economic security” are huge and vaguely defined realms of jurisdiction.

Under the Branch’s enforcement focus or interpretation of its law enforcement mandate, it has the power to prosecute fraud and misconduct in the fields of:

  • Pharmaceuticals and medical devices

  • Food and dietary supplements

  • Consumer fraud, including elder fraud and other scams

  • Deceptive trade practices

  • Telemarketing

  • Data privacy

  • Veterans fraud

  • Consumer product safety and tampering

  • Tobacco products

Business owners and executives are often surprised to learn that the Consumer Protection Branch has so many oversight powers. But the Consumer Protection Branch’s wide reach is not limited to the laws that it can invoke and enforce; it also has a wide geographical reach, as well. In order to carry out its objective, the Branch brings both criminal and affirmative civil enforcement cases throughout the country. In one recent case, the Consumer Protection Branch prosecuted a drug manufacturer for violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) after the drug maker hid and destroyed records before an inspection by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The drug manufacturer, however, was an Indian company that sold several cancer drugs in the U.S. The plant inspection took place in West Bengal, India.

The Branch Has Lots of Laws at Its Disposal

The extremely broad reach of the Consumer Protection Branch comes with a significant implication: There are numerous laws that the Branch can invoke as it regulates and investigates businesses. Many of these are substantive laws that prohibit certain types of conduct, like:

Others, however, are procedural laws, which prohibit using certain means to carry out a crime, like:

  • Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), which is the crime of using the mail system to commit fraud

  • Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), which is the crime of using wire, radio, or television communication devices to commit fraud, including the internet

This can mean that many defendants get hit with multiple criminal charges for the same line of conduct, drastically increasing the severity of a criminal case. For example, in one case, a group of pharmacists fraudulently billed insurers for over $900 million in medications that they knew were not issued under a valid doctor-patient relationship. They were charged with misbranding medication and healthcare fraud, in addition to numerous counts of mail fraud for shipping that medication through the mail.

The Branch Has the Power to Pursue Civil and Criminal Sanctions

Lots of business owners and executives are also unaware of the fact that the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch has the power to pursue both civil and criminal cases if the law being enforced allows for it.

This has serious consequences for companies, and not just because the Branch can imprison individuals for putting consumers at risk: It also complicates the strategy for defending against enforcement action.

A good example of how this works in real life is a healthcare fraud allegation that is pursued by the Consumer Protection Branch under the False Claims Act, or FCA, because the alleged fraud implicated money from a government healthcare program, like Medicare or Medicaid. For it to be the crime of healthcare fraud, the Consumer Protection Branch would have to prove that there was an intent to defraud the program. If there is no intent, though, the Branch can still pursue civil penalties.

This complicates the defense strategy because keeping prosecutors from establishing your intent is not the end of the case. It just takes prison time off the table. While this is a big step in protecting your rights and interests, it still leaves you and your company open to civil liability. That liability can be quite substantial, as many anti-fraud laws – including the FCA – impose civil penalties on each violation and impose treble damages, or three times the amount fraudulently obtained.

As Dr. Nick Oberheiden, a consumer protection defense lawyer at the national law firm Oberheiden P.C., explains, “While relying on a lack of intent defense can work with other criminal offenses, it is a poor choice when fighting against allegations of fraud because it tacitly admits to the fraudulent actions. Enforcement agencies like the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch can then easily impose civil liability against your company.”

The Branch Works in Tandem With Other Agencies

The Consumer Protection Branch only has about 200 prosecutors, support professionals, embedded law enforcement agents, and investigators. However, between October 2020 and December 2021, the Branch charged at least 96 individuals and corporations with criminal offenses and another 112 with civil enforcement actions, collecting $6.38 billion in judgments and resolutions.

The Branch can do this in large part because it works closely with other federal law enforcement agencies, like the:

By pooling their resources with other agencies like these, the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch can bring more weight to its enforcement action against your company.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

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

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

FDA Issues Warning Letters to 7 Dietary Supplement Companies for Drug Claims

  • On November 17, 2022, FDA posted warning letters to 7 companies for selling different dietary supplements with claims that caused the products to be “drugs” in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).  Under the FD&C Act, products intended to diagnose, cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent disease are drugs and are subject to the requirements that apply to drugs, even if they are labeled as dietary supplements.

  • The claims were found on the 7 companies’ websites, social media pages, and/or Amazon or Walmart storefronts, and included a variety of statements regarding the products’ claimed abilities to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent cardiovascular disease (or related conditions, such as atherosclerosis, stroke, or heart failure).  Six of the companies at issue sell a product(s) containing one or more dietary ingredients identified as Vitamin B3, red yeast rice, pine bark extract, EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids, magnesium, zinc, bergamot, Hawthorn berry, Hawthorn extract, Coleus forskohlii, hops, taurine, garlic powder, amino sulfonic acid, Co-Q-10, and/or octacosanol.  The seventh company does not list a dietary ingredient but identifies its product as a “glycocalyx regenerating product” and notes various “pathologies associated with impaired endothelial glycocalyx.”  As noted in the warning letters, FDA has not evaluated whether the unapproved products are effective for their intended use, the proper dosage, potential interaction with FDA-approved drugs or other substances, or whether they have dangerous side effects or other safety concerns.  Further, in addition to characterizing the products as unapproved “new drugs,” FDA’s letters note misbranding charges based on the impossibility of writing adequate directions for a layperson to use the products safely for the intended purpose of treating one more diseases that are not amenable to self-diagnosis or treatment without the supervision of a licensed practitioner.

  • FDA requested that the companies respond to the warning letters within 15 working days and describe how they will address the issues, or provide reasoning and substantiation as to why they believe the products are not in violation of the law.  Failure to adequately address could result in legal action, such as product seizure and/or injunction.

For more Biotech, Food and Drug Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP