Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Redesigned 2020 IRS Form W-4

The IRS has substantially redesigned the Form W-4 to be used beginning in 2020.

New employees first paid wages during 2020 must use the new redesigned Form W-4.  In addition, employees who worked for an employer before 2020 but are rehired during 2020 also must use the redesigned 2020 Form W-4.

Continuing employees who provided a Form W-4 before 2020 do not have to furnish the new Form W-4.  However, if a continuing employee who wants to adjust his/her withholding must use the redesigned Form.

IRS FAQs for Employers

The IRS has issued the following FAQs for employers about the redesigned 2020 Form W-4:

  • Are all employees required to furnish a new Form W-4?

No, employees who have furnished Form W-4 in any year before 2020 do not have to furnish a new form merely because of the redesign. Employers will continue to compute withholding based on the information from the employee’s most recently furnished Form W-4.

  • Are new employees first paid after 2019 required to use the redesigned form?

Yes, all new employees first paid after 2019 must use the redesigned form. Similarly, any other employee who wishes to adjust their withholding must use the redesigned form.

  • How do I treat new employees first paid after 2019 who do not furnish a Form W-4?

New employees first paid after 2019 who fail to furnish a Form W-4 will be treated as a single filer with no other adjustments.  This means that a single filer’s standard deduction with no other entries will be taken into account in determining withholding.  This treatment also generally applies to employees who previously worked for you who were rehired in 2020 and did not furnish a new Form W-4.

  • What about employees paid before 2020 who want to adjust withholding from their pay dated January 1, 2020, or later?

Employees must use the redesigned form.

  • May I ask all of my employees paid before 2020 to furnish new Forms W-4 using the redesigned version of the form?

Yes, you may ask, but as part of the request you should explain:

 »   they do not have to furnish a new Form W-4, and

 »   if they do not furnish a new Form W-4, withholding will continue based on a valid form previously furnished.

For those employees who furnished forms before 2020 and who do not furnish a new one after 2019, you must continue to withhold based on the forms previously furnished.  You may not treat employees as failing to furnish Forms W-4 if they don’t furnish a new Form W-4. Note that special rules apply to Forms W-4 claiming exemption from withholding.

  • Will there still be an adjustment for nonresident aliens?

Yes, the IRS will provide instructions in the 2020 Publication 15-T, Federal Income Tax Withholding Methods, on the additional amounts that should be added to wages to determine withholding for nonresident aliens. And nonresident alien employees should continue to follow the special instructions in Notice 1392 when completing their Forms W-4.

  • When can we start using the new 2020 Form W-4?

The new 2020 Form W-4 can be used with respect to wages to be paid in 2020.

Additional Information

This Publication includes the income tax withholding tables to be used by automated and manual payroll systems beginning in 2020 regarding both (i) Forms W-4 from 2019 or earlier AND (ii) Forms W-4 from 2020 or later.

  • IRS FAQs on the 2020 Form W-4

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020

More on IRS Forms & Regulations on the National Law Review Tax Law page.

Federal Court Issues Eleventh-Hour TRO to Enjoin Enforcement of California’s Controversial New Independent Contractor Law for 70,000 Independent Truckers

On January 1, 2020, California’s new independent contractor statute, known as AB 5, went into effect.  The law codifies the use of an “ABC” test to determine if an individual may be classified as an independent contractor.

The hastily passed and controversial statute has been challenged by a number of groups as being unconstitutional and/or preempted by federal law, including ride-share and delivery companies and freelance writers.

Just hours before AB 5 went into effect, a California federal court in San Diego enjoined enforcement of the statute as to some individuals – approximately 70,000 independent truckers, many of whom have invested substantial sums of money to purchase their own trucks and to work as “owner-operators.”

In the lawsuit, the California Trucking Association (“CTA”) has alleged that the “ABC” test set forth in AB 5 is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”).

The CTA asserts that the FAAA preempts the “B” prong because it will effectively operate as a de facto prohibition on motor carriers contracting with independent owner-operators, and will therefore directly impact motor carriers’ services, routes, and prices, in contravention of the FAAA’s preemption provision.

The CTA further contends that the test imposes an impermissible burden on interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The CTA asserts that the test would deprive motor carriers of the right to engage in the interstate transportation of property free of unreasonable burdens, as motor carriers would be precluded from contracting with a single owner-operator to transport an interstate load that originates or terminates in California.  Instead, motor carriers would be forced to hire an employee driver to perform the leg of the trip that takes place in California.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Limiting Junk Fax Class Actions: Online Fax Services Outside Scope of TCPA FCC Rules

 

On December 9, 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a declaratory ruling In the Matter of Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC (“Amerifactors”) concluding that modern faxing technologies are not within the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The Amerifactors ruling, which follows the express language of the TCPA, determines that faxes received via an online fax service as electronic messages are effectively email and therefore are not faxes received on a “telephone facsimile machine” under the statute. This narrows the scope of the TCPA to traditional fax machines and will make it more difficult for attorneys to certify classes of fax recipients under the TCPA, ideally curbing the plethora of TCPA Fax class action lawsuits.

Amerifactors Background

In 2017, Amerifactors filed a petition for an expedited declaratory ruling asking the FCC to “clarify that faxes sent by “online fax services” are not faxes sent to “telephone facsimile machines”[1] therefore, outside of the scope of the TCPA. While faxing has declined in usage significantly, many of those who still receive faxes do so through cloud-based services that send the document via an attachment to an email.  At the time of Amerifactors’ declaratory filing, they were defending a class action suit with claims that Amerifactors violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited fax messages, the bulk of which were sent to consumers from online fax services.

FCC Ruling and Logic

In the Amerifactors ruling, the FCC explained that faxes sent by online fax services do not lead to the “specific harms” Congress sought to address in the TCPA’s Junk Fax Protection Amendment and concluded that “a fax received by an online fax service as an electronic message is effectively an email.”

Unlike printed fax messages that require the recipient to supply paper and ink, the FCC concluded consumers can manage faxes sent by online fax services the same way they manage their email by blocking senders or deleting incoming messages without printing them, short-circuiting many of the specific harms envisioned by the original legislation.  With online fax services, there is no phone-line that is occupied and therefore unavailable for other purposes, and no paper or ink used that must be supplied by the recipient.  Clarifying legislative intent, the FCC stated:

“The House Report on the TCPA makes clear that the facsimile provisions of the statute were intended to curb two specific harms: “First, [a fax advertisement] shifts some of the costs of advertising from the sender to the recipient. Second, it occupies the recipient’s facsimile machine so that it is unavailable for legitimate business messages while processing and printing the junk fax.”

In many ways, the FCC ruling in Amerifactors demonstrates FCC recognition of the changes in faxing technology.  Steven Augustino of KelleyDrye[2], one of the attorneys who represented Amerifactors,  points out that the language we use now does not match the technology that has largely replaced traditional faxing technology, instead offering a short-hand that has roots in an earlier era—and that references dead technologies.  Augustino says:

“Amerifactors argued that the term “faxing” has outlived the actual technology of faxing, much in the same way that we still dial a telephone even though no one has a rotary telephone, or we “cc” people on emails but we aren’t using carbon copies.  In many ways, saying ‘I sent a fax’ is similar to that, the term has outlived the technology that has supported it.”

There is reason to believe that this is the first of many declaratory rulings on fax matters under the TCPA.  As of November 2019, there are thirty-six petitions in front of the FCC, and six of those petitions specifically address “junk” faxing rules.  These petitions represent a variety of faxing issues, such as consent and the definition of an advertisement.   The declaratory ruling in Amerifactors and the FCC’s reasoning related to technological changes will likely impact the FCC’s rule-making on similar issues.

Implications for Future TCPA Fax Class Action Lawsuits

According to Douglas B. Brown of RumbergerKirk, one of the attorneys who represented Amerifactors in the FCC’s declaratory ruling:

“While the traditional fax machine has faded out of today’s business communications, online fax services provide secure communications that are critical to providing consumers with secure information about their finances, health and other important matters. The FCC’s ruling allows for these communications to continue without interference from debilitating class-action lawsuits.”

Per Samantha Duke of RumbergerKirk who also represented Amerifactors:

“First, according to the Hobbs Act, federal district courts are bound to enforce the FCC’s rules, regulations, and orders relating to the TCPA. Thus, this declaratory ruling may impact all fax class actions filed in the district courts in the country.”

The Amerifactors ruling requires a closer look at how faxes are being received complicating how class actions are certified under the TCPA.  Per Duke:

“The Amerifactors ruling now makes the method by which the fax was received key to determining whether any particular unsolicited facsimile violates the TCPA. This individualized determination will most certainly complicate any attempt to certify a TCPA-fax class action as the question of whether the facsimile was sent to an online fax service will predominate over any common issue.”

In short, unless a fax comes through an old-school fax machine, it’s outside the reach of the TCPA per the FCC’s Amerifactors ruling.

[1] See Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling of Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC, CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338, at 2 (filed July 13, 2017) (Petition).

[2] Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC was represented by Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA attorneys Douglas B. Brown and Samantha Duke, along with attorney Steven A. Augustino of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Copyright ©2019 National Law Forum, LLC

For more on the TCPA and FCC Regulations, see the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law section.

Senate Introduces Bill to Formalize Joint Framework for Regulating Cell-Cultured Meat Products

Producers of cell-cultured meat – synthetic meat products derived from animal cell cultures that are intended to simulate the taste, appearance, and texture of traditional animal products – may soon receive regulatory direction from Congress. On December 16, 2019, Senators Mike Enzi (WY) and Jon Tester (MT) introduced legislation to codify a joint agreement between the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulating the development and sale of cell-cultured meat products. The legislation aims to address ongoing uncertainty over which federal agency should regulate the cell culture development process, and would assign authority to USDA to establish appropriate label terms for cell-cultured meat products. The bill arrives even as a number of states have recently acted to prohibit cell-cultured meat products from being labeled as “meat” – and are now facing lawsuits in federal court.

Cell-cultured meat, also called lab-grown meat or “clean meat,” is grown in a sterile laboratory environment. The cell cultures are drawn from either a live or slaughtered animal and grown in a complex multi-step process.[1] They are differentiated and matured to simulate traditional meat products while avoiding many of the environmental impacts associated with traditional animal husbandry. Technology advocates state that cell-cultured meat reduces feed costs, crop footprints, greenhouse gas emissions, and water consumption.

But cell-cultured meat products have not yet been able to offer these benefits at scale, owing in part to high costs currently associated with development and production. Regulatory uncertainty has also created challenges, as regulators have grappled over which federal agency should have primary oversight over the cell-cultured meat production process: while USDA regulates and inspects meat and poultry, FDA generally regulates all other food products to ensure that they are safe for human consumption and labeled accurately. This longstanding framework has prompted a challenging question for regulators and stakeholders alike: should cell-cultured meat products be regulated by USDA under its authority over traditional meat and poultry products, or by FDA, which has historically regulated the types of food manufacturing facilities and laboratories where cell-cultured meat will be grown and produced?

The agencies have already offered their commitment to work together. In November 2018, USDA and FDA issued a press release articulating a joint framework for robust collaboration, wherein FDA would oversee the stages of production from cell collection to differentiation, while USDA would regulate all subsequent processing, packing, and labeling of the products.[2] The agencies formalized their joint agreement in March 2018.

Responding to concerns from livestock industry groups and other stakeholders, a number of states (including Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Wyoming) subsequently passed laws to prohibit certain animal-derived food products from being labeled as “meat” or a “meat food product.” Several of those laws were subsequently challenged in lawsuits brought by public interest groups.

In the wake of these legal challenges, Senators Enzi and Tester introduced the “Food Safety Modernization for Innovative Technologies Act” (Senate Bill 3053) on December 16.[3] The bill draws from the Joint Agreement and aims to clarify that FDA will oversee the initial cell collection, proliferation, and culturing processes while transferring regulatory oversight of the harvested cells to USDA for regulation related to further processing and packaging. Significantly, the bill provides USDA with exclusive authority over labeling requirements for cell-cultured meat products derived from cell lines of livestock or poultry and assigns USDA with responsibility for establishing “appropriate nomenclature” for these product labels. The bill also requires the FDA and USDA to share information and collaborate during cell differentiation and harvesting. As of this date, the bill has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and has yet to face a vote.

[1] See Alan Sachs & Sarah Kettenmann, A Burger by Any Other Name, 15 SciTech Lawyer 19 (Winter 2019).

[2] U.S. Dept Agric., Statement from USDA Secretary Perdue and FDA Commissioner Gottlieb on the Regulation of Cell-Cultured Food Products from Cell Lines of Livestock and Poultry, Release No. 0248.18, Nov 16, 2018, available at https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/11/16/statement-usda-secretary-perdue-and-fda-commissioner-gottlieb.

[3] Food Safety Modernization for Innovative Technologies Act, S. 3053, 116th Cong. (2019).

© 2019 Beveridge & Diamond PC

For more on Cell-Cultured Meat, please see the Biotech, Food and Drug Law section of the National Law Review.

Apollo Settles Alleged Sanctions Violations: Aircraft Lessors Pay Attention

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has broad delegated authority to administer and enforce the sanctions laws and related sanctions programs of the United States. As a key component of its enforcement authority, OFAC may investigate “apparent violations” of sanctions laws and assess civil monetary penalties against violators pursuant to five statutes, including the Trading with the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.1

An “apparent violation” involves “conduct that constitutes an actual or possible violation of U.S. economic sanctions laws.”2 An OFAC investigation of an “apparent violation” may lead to one or more administrative actions, including a “no action” determination, a request for additional information, the issuance of a cautionary letter or finding of violation, the imposition of a civil monetary penalty and, in extreme cases, a criminal referral.3 Investigations of apparent violations by OFAC often lead to negotiated settlements where a final determination is not made as to whether a sanctions violation has actually occurred.4

Upon the conclusion of a proceeding that “results in the imposition of a civil penalty or an informal settlement” against or with an entity (as opposed to an individual), OFAC is required to make certain basic information available to the public.5 In addition, OFAC may release on a “case-by-case” basis “additional information” concerning the penalty proceeding,6 and it often does. Such additional information will sometimes include informal compliance guidance, cautionary reminders and best practices recommendations. Such information is routinely consumed by corporate compliance officers seeking fresh insight on ever-evolving compliance and enforcement trends, particularly in the context of proceedings relating to industries with which they are involved.

On November 7, 2019, OFAC released enforcement information that has caught the attention of the aircraft leasing community, particularly U.S. aircraft lessors and their owned or controlled Irish lessor subsidiaries.7 The matter involved a settlement by Apollo Aviation Group, LLC8 of its potential civil liability for apparent violations of OFAC’s Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR) that existed in 2014–5.9 Although the amount of the settlement was relatively modest, the enforcement activity by OFAC in the proceeding has attracted scrutiny by aircraft lessors because, for the first time in recent memory, a U.S. aircraft lessor has paid a civil penalty to OFAC for alleged sanctions violations.

At the time of the apparent violations, Apollo was a U.S. aircraft lessor which became involved in two engine leasing transactions that came back to haunt it.

In the first transaction, Apollo leased two jet engines to a UAE lessee which subleased them to a Ukrainian airline with which it was apparently affiliated. The sublessee, in turn, installed both engines on an aircraft that it “wet leased”10 to Sudan Airways, which was on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons within the meaning of the “Government of Sudan.” Sudan Airways used the engines on flights to and from Sudan for approximately four months before they were returned to Apollo when the lease ended. Meanwhile, in a separate transaction, Apollo leased a third jet engine to the same UAE lessee, which subleased the engine to the same Ukrainian airline, which installed the engine on an aircraft that it also wet leased to Sudan Airways. Sudan Airways used the third engine on flights to and from Sudan until such time as Apollo discovered how it was being used and demanded that the engine be removed from the aircraft.

Both leases between Apollo and its UAE lessee contained restrictive covenants “prohibiting the lessee from maintaining, operating, flying, or transferring the engines to any countries subject to United States or United Nations sanctions.”11 Thus, by allowing the engines to be installed by its sublessee on aircraft that were eventually wetleased to Sudan Airways, and flown to and from Sudan during the country’s embargo, the lessee presumably breached the operating restrictions and covenants imposed by Apollo in the leases. Moreover, once Apollo learned that the first two engines had been used, and the third engine was being used, for the benefit of Sudan Airways, it demanded that the third engine be removed from the aircraft that the sub-lessee had wet-leased to Sudan Airways, and this was done.12

One might reasonably conclude from these facts that Apollo acted like a good corporate citizen. So what did Apollo do wrong from a sanctions compliance standpoint?

OFAC stated that Apollo may have violated section 538.201 of the SSR, which at the time “prohibited U.S. persons from dealing in any property or interests in property of the Government of Sudan,”13 as well as section 538.205 of the SSR, which at the time “prohibited the exportation or re-exportation, directly or indirectly, of goods, technology or services, from the United States or by U.S. persons to Sudan.”14

What are the takeaways and possible lessons to be drawn by aircraft lessors from this settlement based upon these alleged violations and the facts upon which they were based?

First, according to OFAC, Apollo did not “ensure” that the engines “were utilized in a manner that complied with OFAC’s regulations,” notwithstanding lease language that effectively required its lessee to comply.15 OFAC is clearly suggesting here that aircraft lessors have a duty to require sanctions compliance by their lessees. And, in view of the fact that many sanctions programs are enforced on a strict liability basis, OFAC’s comment that Apollo failed to “ensure” compliance by its lessee and sublessees makes sense. Apollo was not in a position to avoid civil liability by hiding behind the well-drafted language of its two leases. If a sanctions violation occurred for which Apollo was strictly liable, the mere fact that its lessee’s breach of the lease was the proximate cause of the violation would not provide a safe harbor.

As an example of Apollo’s alleged failure to “ensure” legal compliance, OFAC observed that Apollo did not obtain “U.S. law export compliance certificates from lessees and sublessees,”16 a comment which is somewhat puzzling. To our knowledge, there is nothing in the law requiring a lessor to obtain export compliance certificates, at least not in circumstances where an export or re-export license is not otherwise required in connection with the underlying lease transaction. Moreover, as a practical matter, it would be difficult, at best, for an aircraft lessor to force the direct delivery of certificates from a sublessee or sub-sub-lessee with whom it lacks privity of contract. In view of the foregoing, one assumes that OFAC was looking for Apollo to install procedures by which its lessee would self-report on a regular basis its own compliance (and compliance by downstream sublessees) with applicable export control laws and the relevant sanctions restrictions contained in the lease.

Second, OFAC found that Apollo “did not periodically monitor or otherwise verify its lessee’s and sublessee’s adherence to the lease provisions requiring compliance with U.S. sanctions laws during the life of the lease.”17 In this regard, OFAC observed that Apollo never learned how and where its engines were being used until after the first two engines were returned following lease expiration and a post-lease review of engine records, including “specific information regarding their use and destinations,” actually conducted.

In view of the foregoing, OFAC stressed the importance of “companies operating in high-risk industries to implement effective, thorough and on-going, risk-based compliance measures, especially when engaging in transactions concerning the aviation industry.”18 OFAC also reminded aircraft and engine lessors of its July 23, 2019, advisory warning of deceptive practices “employed by Iran with respect to aviation matters.”19 While the advisory focused on Iran, OFAC noted that “participants in the civil aviation industry should be aware that other jurisdictions subject to OFAC sanctions may engage in similar deception practices.”20 Thus, according to OFAC, companies operating internationally should implement Know Your Customer screening procedures and “compliance measures that extend beyond the point-of-sale and function throughout the entire business of lease period.”21

As a matter of best practices, aircraft lessors should implement risk-based sanctions compliance measures throughout the entirety of a lease period, and most do. Continuous KYC screening by lessors of their lessees and sublessees is a common compliance practice. Periodic reporting by lessees as to the use and destination of leased aircraft and engines appears to be a practice encouraged by OFAC.22 Lessors can also make it a regular internal practice to spot check the movement of their leased aircraft through such web-based platforms as Flight Tracker and Flight Aware. If implemented by lessors, such practices may enable early detection of nascent sanctions risks and violations by their lessees and sublessees.

Finally, OFAC reminded lessors that they “can mitigate sanctions risk by conducting risk assessments and exercising caution when doing business with entities that are affiliated with, or known to transact business with, OFAC-sanctioned persons or jurisdictions, or that otherwise pose high risks due to their joint ventures, affiliates, subsidiaries, customers, suppliers, geographic location, or the products and services they offer.” Such risk assessment is an integral part of the risk-based sanctions compliance program routinely encouraged by OFAC, as outlined in its Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments on May 2, 2019.23 For aircraft and engine lessors, conducting pre-lease due diligence on the ownership and control of prospective lessees and sublessees, as well as the business they conduct, the markets they serve, the equipment they use and the aviation partners with whom they engage, are key to identifying and understanding the sanctions risks that a prospective business opportunity presents.

1 See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties, Final Rule, 84 Fed. Reg. 27714, 27715 (June 14, 2019).

2 31 C.F.R. Part 501, Appendix A, Section I.A.

3 31 C.F.R. Part 501, Appendix A, Section II.

4 31 C.F.R. Part 501, Appendix A, Section V.C.

5 31 C.F.R. §501.805(d)(1). Such information includes “(A) [t]he name and address of the entity involved, (B) [t]he sanctions program involved, (C) A brief description of the violation or alleged violation, (D) [a] clear indication whether the proceeding resulted in an informal settlement or in the imposition of a penalty, (E) [a]n indication whether the entity voluntarily disclosed the violation or alleged violation to OFAC, and (F) [t]he amount of the penalty imposed or the amount of the agreed settlement.” Id. OFAC communicates all such information through its website. 31 C.F.R. § 501.805(d)(2).

6 31 C.F.R. § 501.805(d)(4).

7 See OFAC Resource Center, Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and Apollo Aviation Group, LLC (Nov. 7, 2019) (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Page…) (the Settlement Announcement).

8 In December 2018, Apollo was acquired by The Carlyle Group and currently operates as Carlyle Aviation Partners Ltd. According to the Settlement Announcement, neither The Carlyle Group nor its affiliated funds were involved in the apparent violations at issue. See id. at 1 n.1.

9 See 31 C.F.R. Part 538, Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (7-1-15 Edition). Note that most sanctions with respect to Sudan were effectively revoked by general license as of October 2, 2017, thereby authorizing transactions previously prohibited by the SSR during the time period of the apparent violations by Apollo. However, as is true when most sanctions programs are lifted, the general license issued in the SSR program did not “affect past, present of future OFAC enforcements or actions related to any apparent violations of the SSR relating to activities that occurred prior to the date of the general license.” Settlement Announcement at 1 n.2. See also OFAC FAQ 532 (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Sanctions/Pages/faq_other.aspx#sudan_whole). 

10 A “wet lease” is “an aviation leasing arrangement whereby the lessor operates the aircraft on behalf of the lessee, with the lessor typically providing the crew, maintenance and insurance, as well as the aircraft itself.” See Settlement Announcement at 1 n.3.

11 Id. at 1.

12 Unfortunately, Apollo did not learn that the first two engines were used in violation of lease restrictions until they were returned following lease expiration and it conducted a post-lease review of the relevant engine records. 

13 The alleged application of section 538.201 to Apollo in the circumstances confirms the broad interpretive meaning that OFAC often ascribes to terms such as “interest,” “property,” “property interest” and “dealings,” which appear in many sanctions programs.

14 The alleged application of section 538.205 to Apollo in the circumstances suggests that a U.S. lessor of aircraft and jet engines may be tagged with the “re-export” of such goods and related services from one foreign country to another, notwithstanding the existence of a contractual daisy-chain of lessees, sub-lessees, and/or wetlessees that actually direct and control such flight decisions. In the context of U.S. export control laws, the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) define the term “re-export” to include the “actual shipment or transmission of an item subject to the EAR from one foreign country to another foreign country, including the sending or taking of an item to or from such countries in any manner.” 15 C.F.R. § 734.14(a)(1). Thus, for export control purposes, the flight of an aircraft subject to the EAR from one foreign county to another foreign country constitutes a “re-export” of the aircraft to that country. 

15 Settlement Announcement at 1.

16 Id.

17 Id., at 1–2.

18 Id. at 3. (emphasis added).

19 Id. See OFAC, Iran-Related Civil Aviation Industry Advisory (July 23, 2019) (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20190723.aspx)

20 Id.

21 Id. (emphasis added).

22 In Apollo, OFAC reacted favorably to certain steps alleged to have been taken by Apollo to minimize the risk of the recurrence of similar conduct, including the implementation of procedures by which Apollo began “obtaining U.S. law export compliance certificates from lessees and sublessees.” Id.

23 See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/framework_ofac_cc.pdf.

© 2019 Vedder Price

ARTICLE BY John E. Bradley of Vedder Price.
More sanctions actions on the National Law Review Antitrust & Trade Regulation law page.

US Banking Agencies Issue Statement on Alternative Date in Credit Underwriting

On December 3, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Credit Union Administration (the Banking Agencies) released interagency guidance related to the use of alternative data for purposes of underwriting credit (the Guidance).

The Guidance acknowledges that alternative data may “improve the speed and accuracy of credit decisions,” especially in cases where consumer credit applicants have “thin files” because they are generally outside the mainstream credit system. In order to comply with applicable federal laws and regulations when using such alterative data, including those related to unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, the Banking Agencies advise that lenders should responsibly use such information. Furthermore, the Guidance reminds lenders of the importance of an appropriate compliance management program that comports with the requirements of applicable consumer protection laws and regulations.

As a final recommendation, the Banking Agencies suggest that lenders consult with appropriate regulators when planning to use alternative data to underwrite credit.

The Guidance is available here.

©2019 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

‘ABC Test’ for Independent Contractors Set to Take Effect in California Jan. 1

As 2019 draws to a close, every business with a California presence should consider evaluating its workforce in the Golden State to ensure compliance with AB 5, which will be effective Jan. 1, 2020.

Through AB 5, the California legislature codified and expanded the reach of the so-called “ABC Test” for determining whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor. This new law expands the reach of the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision which applied to coverage under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders. AB 5 applies this new test to businesses under the California Labor Code and the California Unemployment Insurance Code.

Currently, California businesses are subject to a variety of tests of employee status, depending upon the law in question. Under most federal and California laws, the common law agency test applies. For workers’ compensation laws, the California Supreme Court adopted an “economic realities” test 30 years ago in S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations.

However, as of Jan. 1, 2020, the default standard for independent contractor treatment will be the ABC Test.

The ABC Test significantly narrows the scope of work for which businesses may classify workers as independent contractors, rather than employees, and expands the application of this new standard to nearly all employers doing business in California.

Businesses that do not adapt to the ABC Test may face an increased risk of claims from workers asserting that they were misclassified as independent contractors, on an individual and class or collective basis.

ABC Test Explained

Under the ABC Test, a worker is assumed to be an employee unless the business demonstrates:

A. That the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in performing the work, both in the contract for performance and in fact

B. That the worker performs work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business

C. That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity

It is Prong B of the test that will likely cause the most difficulty for companies that regularly engage independent contractors.

Prong B excludes from the assumption of employee status workers who perform duties outside the “usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” While AB 5 does not specifically define the phrase, many businesses use contractors to help them perform their regular business. California courts are expected to be tasked with interpreting the scope of this requirement.

Many industries lobbied hard to obtain exemptions from the ABC Test. The new statute excludes seven different categories of occupations or business, each with its own separate test for qualifying for the exclusion. These exclusions cover diverse occupations ranging from professionals such as architects and lawyers to non-professionals such as grant writers, tutors, truck drivers, and manicurists. Each category has a slightly different requirement to qualify for the exclusion from the ABC Test. However, qualifying for the exclusion from the ABC Test merely defaults the workers to a determination under the Borello test. Complicating matters further is that for all these occupations, a determination of employee status under federal law, such as under the National Labor Relations Act, likely remains under the common law agency test.

Application and Enforcement

While the California Labor Commissioner is officially tasked with enforcing many of the provisions of AB 5, claims of worker misclassification will more commonly be asserted in private civil actions either individually or on a class basis. In other words, companies will increasingly see independent contractors bring claims for wage and hour law lawsuits or class actions (i.e. overtime claims, meal and rest break claims, wage statement claims, etc.).

Employer Takeaways

Although several industry groups are expected to challenge the new law, businesses operating in California should review and update their practices relative to independent contractors before Jan. 1, 2020 – whether through potentially reclassifying independent contractors as employees or revising independent contractor agreements.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP\

More on independent contractor compliance via the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

CMS Issues Final Regulations For Hospital Price Transparency

On November 15, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced final regulations implementing greater price transparency requirements for hospitals. Issued on the heels of a Trump Administration Executive Order directing HHS to propose regulations on increased price transparency, the new regulations modify and finalize CMS’ earlier guidance implementing section 2718(e) of the Public Health Service Act, to further expand price transparency requirements for hospitals. (See our previous analysis of the Executive Order here.) Effective January 1, 2021, the new regulations will be located at 45 C.F.R. 180.00 et. seq. and will require hospitals to make accessible specific “standard charge” pricing data for all “items and services” provided. Furthermore, the regulations include special requirements for posting pricing information about “shoppable services.” Key details are summarized below:

Important Definitions (45 CFR 180.20)

  • Hospital. The regulations apply to any institution licensed as a hospital under applicable state law.
  • Items and Services. The regulations require pricing data on all items and services “including individual items and services and service packages, that could be provided by a hospital to a patient in connection with an inpatient admission or an outpatient department visit for which the hospital has established a standard charge.”
  • Shoppable Service. The regulations define a shoppable service as a service that a consumer can schedule in advance.
  • Standard Charge. Hospitals must post the following five standard charges:
    1. Gross charge – The price on the hospital’s chargemaster with no discounts.
    2. Payer-specific negotiated charge – The charge negotiated with a third-party payer.
    3. De-identified minimum negotiated charge – The lowest charge the hospital has negotiated with all third-party payers for an item or service.
    4. De-identified maximum negotiated charge – The highest charge the hospital has negotiated with all third-party payers for an item or service.
    5. Discounted cash price – The charge for an individual who pays cash for an item or service.

Substantive Requirements (45 CFR 180.40-180.60)

All hospitals must now make public two items related to pricing; (a) a machine-readable file containing a list of all standard charges for all items and services, and (b) a consumer-friendly list of standard charges for a limited set of shoppable services. Each of these components are described in more detail below.

  • All Items and Services. Each hospital must establish a list of standard charges for all items and services they provide. This list must include a description of each item or service, the five standard charges (applicable to both inpatient and outpatient services), and any common identifier billing or accounting code used by the hospital. This information must be published on a publicly accessible website in a single searchable digital file without any barriers to access. The posting requirement will apply to each hospital location operating under the same license if the location has different standard charges.
  • Shoppable Services. Each hospital must establish a list of standard charges for 300 shoppable services. This list must include any of the 70 CMS-specified shoppable services the hospital provides and as many additional shoppable services determined by the hospital as needed to reach the 300-service threshold (unless the hospital does not provide 300, then all must be published). The list must include a plain language description of the service, indicators of CMS shoppable services that are not offered, the standard charges – except for the gross charge – for all shoppable services (the gross charge only needs to be posted if the hospital does not offer a discounted cash price), the locations where the shoppable service is provided and any location-specific pricing, and any common identifier billing or accounting code used by the hospital. The hospital may choose the format of publication, but it must be on the internet, accessible without barriers, and prominently located. Compliance with this requirement can occur if a hospital maintains an internet-based price estimator tool for the relevant services.

Enforcement (45 CFR 180.70-180.90)

CMS will monitor compliance by fielding complaints about hospitals, reviewing individuals’ or entities’ analysis of noncompliance, and auditing hospital websites. If noncompliance is detected, CMS will have the authority to issue warning letters, request a corrective action plan, and potentially impose civil monetary penalties up to a maximum of $300 per day.

The regulations go into effect January 1, 2021, giving hospitals a little more than a year to develop a plan for compliance.

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

More on CMS & HHS regulations on the National Law Review Health Law & Managed Care page.

PFAS Rolling into Regulation

Introduction

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, abbreviated as PFAS, are a class of widely dispersed chemicals quickly gaining notoriety in the public health and environmental remediation space. In 2019, rapid developments toward regulation to govern the investigation and cleanup of PFAS contamination to protect human health are occurring in a wide variety of arenas, including federal regulation and congressional action as well as at the state level through both regulation and enacted legislation. This article examines the current state of regulatory developments for PFAS and projects where things are heading in the remainder of 2019, with particular focus on how those developments will incentivize and accelerate the pace of site cleanups and cost recovery, and pose significant challenges to existing sites where other contaminants are already being addressed.

What are PFAS?

PFAS are a class of more than 4,000 synthetic chemicals comprised of carbon-fluorine chains of varying lengths. PFAS have been in use since the late 1940s, due to their unique resistant physical and chemical properties. For example, PFAS have been used in non-stick applications such as cookware, paper packaging, and textiles, as well as in certain types of firefighting foam.[1] The two most widely studied PFAS are perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA.

Over the past decade, understanding of PFAS and their potential toxicity to humans and the environment has increased. Of particular concern is their stability in the environment. The properties that made PFAS so desirable for commercial and industrial use keep these compounds from degrading in the environment and allow them to pose a long-term threat if not removed from the environment and/or from drinking water supplies. Common exposure to these compounds can come through their product use as well as drinking from contaminated water supplies impacted by their release. Also notable are the very low levels at which these compounds exhibit their toxicity, and the very stringent levels under consideration by the regulatory agencies for controlling these compounds. For example, EPA has set interim screening levels of 70 nanograms per liter (parts per trillion or ppt), and several states have proposed guidance levels of 15 ppt or less. For context, 15 ppt is equivalent to a few droplets in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Federal Regulatory Developments

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes cleanup at sites where hazardous substances have been released, and enables parties conducting cleanups to seek cost recovery from other potentially responsible parties. The ability to potentially recover costs under CERCLA can be an important driver in encouraging impacted parties to investigate and remediate contaminated sites. However, as an emerging contaminant class, PFAS are not currently regulated as hazardous substances under CERCLA.

In February 2019, EPA issued an Action Plan outlining its steps to address PFAS and protect public health.[2] Among its listed priority actions was to propose a national drinking water regulatory determination for the two most widely studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, by the end of 2019. This proposed determination would begin the process towards establishment of a maximum contaminant level, or MCL, for these compounds. Another priority action was to initiate the process to list PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances; in April of 2019 at a meeting of state regulators, EPA committed to proposing this hazardous substance designation by the end of 2019.[3] Such a designation will have a multitude of impacts, including 1) PFOA and/or PFOS-contaminated sites will be eligible for listing as Superfund sites; 2) Federal and State authorities will have mechanisms through which they can seek damages or cleanup costs from responsible parties; and 3) Superfund monies will be eligible for use in cleaning up sites contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS.

This commitment to regulate PFOA and PFOS under CERCLA was reaffirmed in a keynote speech of EPA’s General Counsel on September 12th at the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. In his speech, the Honorable Matthew Leopold indicated that EPA was actively looking at designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances by year’s end. This would represent one of the few times in which new contaminants such as these were regulated under CERCLA.

Concurrent with these EPA actions, congressional legislators have called for increased and expedited federal action to regulate PFOA and PFOS, and in some cases the entire PFAS class of 4000 plus chemicals. There have been several bills proposed in 2019 which would commit EPA to taking expedited action with regards to PFAS, including listing some or all PFAS as hazardous substances, and establishing federal MCLs.[4] Perhaps most notably are two bills regarding appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. S.1790 (passed by the Senate on June 27, 2019) would require EPA to promulgate drinking water MCLs for PFOA and PFOS within two years of enactment, and H.R.2500 (passed by the House on July 12, 2019) would require EPA to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances within one year of enactment.

State officials have also actively petitioned for more expedited federal action on PFAS. On July 30, 2019, 22 state and territory attorneys general issued a letter to Congress requesting that certain PFAS be designated hazardous substances, in particular, PFOA, PFOS, and a PFOA-replacement chemical known as GenX. In their letter, the attorneys general specifically note that such a designation would promote cleanup efforts, including federal facilities formerly owned or operated by the US Department of Defense.[5]

Based on these developments from multiple agencies and levels of government, it appears likely that in the relatively short term PFOA and PFOS will be designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA. This in turn will open the door for CERCLA regulation of PFAS-contaminated sites. Once designated, the next question will be one of appropriate cleanup levels. Typically, EPA would take the lead with establishment of MCLs that can be used to develop risk-based cleanup levels, and from which states could either adopt or modify. However, the process for proposing and finalizing a federal MCL can take years. Thus, faced with increasing public pressure to respond to PFAS contamination, the states have stepped in to fill this gap.

State Regulatory Developments

In November 2018, New Jersey became the first state to issue an MCL for any individual PFAS, specifically for the chemical perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).[6] For PFOA and PFOS, there are currently no state MCLs that have been finalized. However, many states have established PFOA and PFOS advisory or screening levels, and several states have begun the MCL rule-making process, with some anticipating finalization this year.

In 2019, three states have proposed MCLs of varying concentrations for PFOA and PFOS:

  • In April, New Jersey proposed an MCL of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS; the public comment period has since closed, and the standard is in the process of finalization;[7]
  • In June, New Hampshire proposed an MCL of 12 ppt for PFOA and 15 ppt for PFOS (they also proposed MCLs for two other PFAS chemicals);[8] those MCLs were approved on July 18,[9] and will become effective on October 1; and
  • In July, New York proposed an MCL of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS making them the most protective standards in the nation; the proposal is currently out for public comment, which closes on September 24.[10]

In addition, several other states have provided commitments to establishing MCLs in the near future. These include Massachusetts with an MCL rule proposal anticipated by the end of 2019;[11] Michigan with an MCL rule proposal expected by October with finalization in 2020;[12] and Vermont with a commitment to establishing and adopting MCLs by February 1, 2020.[13] Other states are also moving forward with efforts to regulate PFAS. For example, in August 2019 California established notification levels for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water of 6.5 ppt and 5.1 ppt, respectively, that go into effect January 1, 2020. [14],[15]

Conclusion

With federal and state regulatory action underway, and mounting public pressure to expedite a response, it is clear that regulation of some PFAS under CERCLA is imminent. By the end of the year, it is likely that 1) EPA will have designated, or be close to designating, PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances; and 2) several states will have finalized MCLs to regulate their remedial response. These two developments will open the door for parties to investigate, cleanup, and ultimately recover the costs associated with PFAS-contaminated sites. In addition, these developments will likely complicate existing sites in terms of both their required remedial response as well as their cost recovery strategy. New PFAS regulation at existing sites will unlock a myriad of cost implications not the least of which involve cost allocation among potentially responsible parties. In the face of these complications and uncertainties, what is clear is that PFAS regulation has rolled off the horizon and directly in front of those involved with protecting public health and the environment.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or accounting advice.

[1]  For a more thorough background on the history and usage of PFAS, see the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council fact sheets at https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/

[2] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-acting-administrator-announces-first-ever-comprehensive-nationwide-pfas-action-1

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan

[3] https://www.asdwa.org/2019/04/11/cooperative-federalism-pfas-are-top-issues-at-ecos-spring-meeting/

[4]  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45793.pdf

[5]  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Press_Releases/2019/Multistate-PFAS-Legislative-Letter73019FINAL.pdf

[6]  New Jersey regulated PFNA largely in response to a regional issue relating to specific historic discharges from a chemical manufacturing facility.

[7]  https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices/20190401a.html

[8]  https://www.des.nh.gov/media/pr/2019/20190628-pfas-standards.htm

[9]  https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/jlcar/minutes/AM7-18-19.pdf

[10]  https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-availability-350-million-water-system-upgrades-statewide-and-directs

[11]  https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/06/20/pfas-stakeholder-presentation-20190620.pdf

At the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection participated in a panel discussion titled “The State of CERCLA Following EPA Reform: More of the Same or Something Super?” In this discussion, Mr. Suuberg indicated that Massachusetts will finalize its PFAS standards by the end of the year, and in an accompanying paper noted that the comment period on the proposed cleanup standard of 20 ppt (for a sum of six PFAS) had closed in July and was currently under review.

[12]       https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3308_3323-494077–rss,00.html

[13]       https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/PFAS/Docs/Act21-2019-VT-PFAS-Law-Factsheet.pdf

[14]            https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/PFOA_PFOS.html

[15]      California already had notification levels of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS and will continue to have a response level for those drinking water systems exceeding 70 ppt for the total combined concentration of both compounds, consistent with EPA’s advisory level. 

© Copyright Nathan 2019

ARTICLE BY Brian Henthorn and Christopher Loos of Nathan.
For more PFAS Regulation developments, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

Cannabis Coming to the Northeast? Governors of NY, NJ, CT and PA Adopt “Core Principles” to Implement Adult-Use Legislation.

On October 17, 2019, Governor Cuomo of New York, Governor Lamont of Connecticut, Governor Murphy of New Jersey and Governor Wolf of Pennsylvania co-hosted the first Cannabis Regulation and Vaping Summit to create a set of uniform principles each state can implement through its adult-use legislation to standardize regulations across the region.

The summit resulted in an agreed-to set of core principles for rolling out adult-use legislation, including (1) market regulation and empowerment, (2) public health, (3) public safety and enforcement, and (4) vaping best practices. Also attending the summit were representatives from Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Colorado.

Market Regulation and Empowerment

When creating adult-use legislation and regulation, the states will implement agreed-to guidelines to set cannabis tax structures and to ensure that social justice initiatives are key components of the legislation. The guidelines discussed include:

  • Implementing social equity initiatives to ensure industry access to those disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs
  • Maintaining awareness of the need to ensure a fair and competitive market by deploying strategies such as limiting the number of licenses or license types
  • Implementing a similar overall tax structure for cannabis products between the four states
  • Providing guidance to open up banking to the industry
  • Implementing meaningful social justice reform such as expediting expungements or pardons and waiving associated fees.

Public Health

Concerned that decreasing production costs might lead to inexpensive high-potency products, the four governors agreed to standardized product safety and testing requirements and impose restrictive advertising requirements to ensure youth are not targeted. These principles include:

  • Prohibiting advertising and product forms that target minors
  • Restricting advertising to audiences that are for the most part over the age of 21
  • Banning adverting and products that appeal to youth, such as flavored cannabis products
  • Restricting cannabis sales to purchasers over the age of 21
  • Collecting and sharing cannabis use data to better understand public health outcomes
  • Limiting the cannabis possession amount and limiting the overall THC content of products to discourage over-consumption and accidental overdose.

Public Safety and Enforcement

To help ensure highway safety and improve options for testing cannabis impairment in the field, the states agreed to the following guidelines:

  • Uniform treatment of drug recognition expert evidence
  • Uniform standard for blood or saliva tests
  • Training for drug recognition experts
  • Methods for sharing information on suspected “bad actions” in legal markets
  • Law enforcement strategies to police the illicit market.

Vaping Best Practices

The states agreed to principles to regulate the entire vaping industry, including vapes containing nicotine, CBD and THC. Using the following guidelines, the states will share strategies and solutions for investigating illicit THC vape pens and regulating filler oils and carrier fluids:

  • Banning or regulating the sale of flavored vapes to reduce use among youth
  • Implementing vape product safety standards for nicotine and cannabinoids that include diluents, excipients and cutting agents
  • Regulating temperature control for vape heating mechanisms
  • Increasing enforcement actions to prevent sale to minors.

New York will aim to pass adult-use legislation during the 2020 legislative session, which begins in January. It is expected that Governor Cuomo will include a cannabis plan in his budget proposal, as he did last year.

© 2019 Wilson Elser

For more cannabis regulation, see the National Law Review Biotech, Food & Drug Law page.