Category: Legislation

Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act

On September 12, 2022, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) released a Request for Information (“RFI”) seeking public input regarding the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (“CIRCIA”). The public comment period will close on November 14th, 2022. The RFI provides a “non-exhaustive” list of topics on which CISA seeks public input, including:

  • Definitions and criteria of various terms, such as “covered entity,” “covered cyber incident,” “substantial cyber incident,” “ransom payment,” “ransom attack,” “supply chain compromise” and “reasonable belief;”
  • Content of reports on covered cyber incidents and the submission process (e.g., how entities should submit reports, report timing requirements, and which federal entities should receive reports;
  • Any conflict with existing or proposed federal or state cyber incident reporting requirements;
  • The expected time and costs associated with reporting requirements; and
  • Common best practices governing the sharing of information related to security vulnerabilities in the U.S. and internationally.

In March 2022, President Biden signed CIRCIA into law. CIRCIA creates legal protections and provides guidance to companies that operate in critical infrastructure sectors, including a requirement to report cyber incidents within 72 hours, and report ransom payments within 24 hours. The CISA website features more information about the law, the RFI, and a list of public listening sessions with CISA to provide input.

Article By Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

California Law Prohibits Cooperation with Out-of-State Entities Regarding Lawful Abortion

In response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1242 into law, which “prohibits law enforcement and California corporations from cooperating with out-of-state entities regarding a lawful abortion in California.”

In particular, AB 1242 prohibits California companies that provide electronic communication services from complying with out-of-state requests from law enforcement regarding an investigation into, or enforcement of, laws restricting abortion.

Sponsored by California Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, AB 1242:

takes an innovative legal approach to protect user data. The bill prohibits California law enforcement agencies from assisting or cooperating with the investigation or enforcement of a violation related to abortion that is lawful in California. This law thereby blocks out-of-state law enforcement officers from executing search warrants on California corporations in furtherance of enforcing or investigating an anti-abortion crime. For example, if another state wants to track the movement of a woman traveling to California seeking reproductive health care, the state would be blocked from accessing cell phone site tower location data of the woman by serving a warrant to the tech company in California. In addition, if another state wants Google search history from a particular IP address, it could not serve an out-of-state search warrant at Google headquarters in CA without an attestation that the evidence is not related to investigation into abortion services. Although the first state to enact such a law, as California often is when it comes to privacy rights, we anticipate that other states will follow suit and that these laws will be hotly contested in litigation.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

An Investment Worth Making: How Structural Changes to the EB-5 Program Can Ensure Real Estate Developers Build a Good Foundation for Their Capital Projects

The United States has made major changes to the rules governing its EB-5 program through the enactment of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA). The RIA was a component of H.R. 2471—the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022—which President Biden signed into law on March 15, 2022. And while the RIA made many sweeping changes to the EB-5 landscape, including establishing an EB-5 Integrity Fund comprised of annual funds collected from regional centers to support auditing and fraud detection operations, two changes in particular are pertinent to developers funding capital investments. First, the RIA altered how developers calculate EB-5 job creation. Second, the RIA prioritizes the processing and adjudication of EB-5 investment in rural area projects, and it tweaked the incentives for high unemployment area and infrastructure projects. Paying careful attention to each of these two areas will enable developers to maximize the benefits afforded to it through the changes enacted by the RIA.

THE RIA MODIFIES JOB CREATION CALCULATIONS

New commercial enterprises under the EB-5 program must create full-time employment for no fewer than 10 United States citizens, United States nationals, or foreign nationals who are either permanent residents or otherwise lawfully authorized for employment in the United States. The RIA made three major changes to how regional centers measure job creation to meet this 10-employee threshold:

  • First, the RIA permits indirect job creation to account for only up to 90% of the initial job creation requirement. For example, if a developer invests in a small retail-residential complex that will eventually create 30 new jobs with the retail stores that will move into the shopping spaces, the developer could count only nine of those jobs toward the 10-employee threshold.
  • Second, the RIA permits jobs created by construction activity lasting less than two years to account for only up to 75% of the initial job creation requirement. The RIA does allow for these jobs to count for direct job creation, however, by multiplying the total number of jobs estimated to be created by the fraction of the two-year period the construction activity will last. For example, if construction on the small retail-residential complex will last only one year and create 100 new jobs, then the RIA would calculate 50 new jobs (100 total jobs multiplied by one-half (one year of a two-year period)) but the developer could count only 7.5 of those 50 jobs toward the 10-employee threshold.
  • Third, while prospective tenants occupying commercial real estate created or improved by the capital investments can count toward the job creation requirement, jobs that are already in existence but have been relocated do not. Therefore, if a restaurant is opening a new location in the small retail-residential complex, the developer could count toward those new jobs toward the job creation requirement. If the restaurant is just moving out of its current location into a space in the retail-residential complex, however, the developer could not count those jobs toward the job creation requirement.

THE RIA CREATES NEW EB-5 VISAS RESERVED FOR TARGETED EMPLOYMENT AREAS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Under the previous regime, the U.S. government would set aside a minimum of 3,000 EB-5 visas for qualified immigrants who invested in targeted employment areas, which encompassed both rural areas and areas that experienced high unemployment. Now, the RIA requires the U.S. government to set aside 20% of the total number of available visas for qualified immigrants who invest in rural areas, another 10% for qualified immigrants who invest in high unemployment areas, and 2% for qualified immigrants who invest in infrastructure projects. Therefore, at a minimum, the RIA reserves nearly a third of all total EB-5 visas issued by the U.S. government for rural projects, high unemployment area projects, and infrastructure projects. Furthermore, and most significantly, the RIA provides that any of these reserved visas that are unused in the fiscal year will remain available in these categories for the next fiscal year.
The changes to the reserved visa structure create significant incentives for qualified immigrants to invest in rural, high unemployment area, and infrastructure projects. If, for example, the United States government calculates that it should issue 10,000 visas in Fiscal Year 1, then the RIA mandates reserving 2,000 visas for rural projects (20% of total), 1,000 for high unemployment area projects (10% of total), and 200 for infrastructure projects (2% of total). These numbers are significant when considering the RIA’s roll-over provision because it pushes projects in these categories to the front of the line for the green card process. If only 500 of the 20,000 visas for rural projects are used in Fiscal Year 1, then the 1,500 unused visas set aside for rural projects roll over to the next fiscal year. Therefore, if the United States government issues 10,000 new visas in Fiscal Year 2, then 3,500 visas will be reserved for rural projects in the new fiscal year (the 1,500 rollover visas from the previous year plus a new 20% of the total number of visas per the RIA), and the high unemployment area and infrastructure project reserved visas would have a new 1,000 (10% of total) and 200 (2% of total) visas in reserve, respectively.

The RIA changed the structures for investing in both targeted employment areas and non-targeted employment areas, however. The RIA raised the minimum investment amount for a targeted employment area by over 50%, increasing the sum from its previous level of US$500,000 to its new level of US$800,000. The RIA similarly raised the non-TEA, standard minimum investment amount from its previous level of US$1 million to now be US$1.05 million.  Additionally, the RIA modified the process for the creation of targeted employment areas: While under the previous regime, the state in which the targeted employment area would be located could send a letter in support of efforts to designate a targeted employment area, the post-RIA EB-5 regime now permits only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to designate targeted employment areas.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The new developments resulting from the RIA will have tangible effects on developers seeking to fund new capital investments. The percentages caps imposed on indirect job creation, relocated jobs, and other categories toward the job creation requirement will likely lengthen the amount of time spent on project creation and completion. These changes also likely should incentivize developers to focus their job creation metrics toward directly created jobs rather than through indirectly created ones. While these changes might increase the length of projects, the broadening of visa reserves through both the percentage caps and the creation of the rollover provisions will likely increase the number of projects in rural areas and high unemployment areas. Developers should carefully consider the composition of their job creation goals and calculate workforce sizes in line with these new requirements. Additionally, developers seeking to ensure they are able to succeed in obtaining visas for their desired employees by avoiding the typical backlog of visa applicants through the EB-5 program should consider investing in rural and high unemployment area projects to take advantage of the broadened application pool.

Article By Brian Graham, Adriana Reyes, and Gregory T. Lewis of K&L Gates

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

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

California Enacts Legal Protections for Cannabis Insurance Providers

Several cannabis-related bills were signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 18, 2022, including Assembly Bill 2568 (AB 2568), which clarifies that it is not a crime for individuals and firms licensed by the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to provide insurance or related services to persons licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activities. Though the California Civil Code was amended in 2018 to clarify that cannabis is the legal object of a contract, and it has been tacitly understood that insurance contracts are legal in California, the intent of this new law is to remove any uncertainty and to encourage further growth of admitted insurance products for California cannabis businesses.

AB 2568 adds section 26261 to the California Business and Professions Code, which states in relevant part: “An individual or firm that is licensed by the Department of Insurance does not commit a crime under California law solely for providing insurance or related services to persons licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activity pursuant to this division.”

Intent of the Law

The California Assembly’s Committee on Insurance explained the intent behind AB 2568 in a report issued earlier this year:

“The hesitancy of insurance providers to provide insurance for commercial cannabis is attributed to risk, since cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, much of the insurance available in California is from surplus lines. This does not align with the federal government’s longstanding determination that it is in the public’s interest for states to regulate their own insurance marketplaces. Further, the argument has been refuted in federal case law brought about in Green Earth Wellness Center v. Attain Specialty Insurance Company (2016), which established that federal classification of cannabis is not relevant in an insurance provider’s determination to write an insurance policy.

It is important that commercial cannabis businesses have multiple options for insurance as they pursue licensure. AB 2568 clarifies that writing insurance for commercial cannabis does not constitute a crime, since cannabis is part of a legal, regulated market in California. This clarity will provide assurances to admitted insurers that they will not be in violation of any regulations and encourage them to provide an insurance product.”

In addition, AB 2568 was strongly supported by CDI, which argued that “we must provide commercial cannabis businesses with multiple, affordable options for insurance as they pursue and maintain state licensure.” CDI supports AB 2568 in part to “promote reliable insurance coverage for all aspects of these cannabis businesses to ensure that these businesses can continue to flourish just like any other business in this state.”

In a separate analysis, the California Senate Committee on Insurance inquired as to whether the bill would achieve the intended result of expanding insurance options for cannabis businesses. It concluded:

“This bill expressly states a protection under California Law for CDI licensees. This protection has been implied since the legalization of recreational cannabis in 2016, and in that same year a federal court gave a nod to insurers that writing cannabis [insurance] is permissible, but only one admitted company has fully waded into the market. On the one hand, insurers are famously risk averse, so this express statement of state law may go a long way for some to take the risk to sell cannabis coverage. But, federal illegality of cannabis could always be the larger barrier to entry for some companies than what the state laws say.”

The Senate report concludes that more study is needed to “consider additional efforts to effectuate the stated goal of growing the domestic market for cannabis insurance.”

Analysis

AB 2568 does not materially change existing California law since providing insurance services to properly licensed California businesses has been legal under state law since at least 2018. The bill, however, is meant to remove any lingering doubt on the topic and to encourage more insurance service providers to enter the market.

As we have previously reported, it is reasonable to conclude that the risk-benefit calculus has adequately shifted to justify entrance into the cannabis market without an unreasonable fear of prosecution. This certainly is true for the insurance industry.

Congress continues to prohibit the Department of Justice and other federal agencies from spending money to prosecute conduct that complies with state medical marijuana laws. Federal law enforcement, meanwhile, has not initiated any prosecution against a plant-touching or ancillary business involved in either adult-use cannabis or medical marijuana where the underlying marijuana business activity was compliant with state law and there was no other independent violation of law.

Despite this favorable outlook, it must be acknowledged that, without a change to the status quo, some degree of theoretical legal risk remains present for any plant-touching or ancillary business in the marijuana industry. Any decision to provide insurance-related services to the cannabis industry must be based on a well-informed understanding of the legal risks and the very challenging operating environment for state-licensed cannabis companies.

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

© 2022 Wilson Elser

NYC Issues Proposed Rules for Its Automated Employment Decision Tools Law

On Friday, September 23, 2022, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) released a Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Rules related to its Automated Employment Decision Tool law (the “AEDT Law”), which goes into effect on January 1, 2023. As we previously wrote, the City passed the AEDT Law to regulate employers’ use of automated employment decision tools, with the aim of curbing bias in hiring and promotions; as written, however, it contains many ambiguities, which has left covered employers with open questions about compliance.

The proposed rules are intended to clarify the requirements for the use of automated employment decision tools within New York City, the definitions of key terms in the AEDT law, the notices to employees and applicants regarding the use of the tool, the bias audit for the tool, and the required published results of the bias audit.

The DCWP’s public hearing on the proposed rules and deadline for comments are October 24, 2022. Although the proposed rules may be modified prior to adoption, the following summarizes the key provisions.

“Substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making”

The AEDT Law applies to an automated decision tool that is used “to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making.” It does not, however, specify the type of activities that constitute such conduct or what particular AI-powered employment tools are covered by the law.

The proposed rules attempt to provide guidance on this issue by defining “substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making” as one of the following actions:

  1. relying solely on a simplified output (score, tag, classification, ranking, etc.), without considering other factors; or
  2. using a simplified output as one of a set of criteria where the output is weighted more than any other criterion in the set; or
  3. using a simplified output to overrule or modify conclusions derived from other factors including human decision-making.

“Bias Audit”

Pursuant to the AEDT Law, before using an automated employment decision tool, a covered employer or employment agency must subject the tool to a “bias audit” no more than one year prior to the use of the of the tool.  The law explains that “bias audit” means an “impartial evaluation by an independent auditor,” but does not otherwise specify who or what constitutes an “independent auditor” or what the “bias audit” must contain. The proposed rules address these gaps.

First, the proposed rules define “independent auditor” as “a person or group that is not involved in using or developing an [automated employment decision tool] that is responsible for conducting a bias audit of such [tool].” This definition does not specify that the auditor must be a separate legal entity from the creator or vendor of the tool and therefore suggests that it may be acceptable for the auditor to be employed by the organization using the tool, provided the auditor does not use and has not been involved in developing the tool.

Second, the proposed rules state that the required contents of a “bias audit” will depend on how the employer or employment agency uses the tool.

If the tool selects individuals to move forward in the hiring process or classifies individuals into groups, the “bias audit,” at a minimum, would need to:

  1. calculate the selection rate for each category;
  2. calculate the impact ratio for each category; and
  3. where the tool classifies candidates into groups, the bias audit must calculate the selection rate and impact ratio for each classification.

If the automated employment decision tool merely scores candidates, the “bias audit” at a minimum, would need to:

  1. calculate the average score for individuals in each category; and
  2. calculate the impact ratio for each category.

The preamble to the proposed rules makes clear that DCWP intends these calculations to be consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“UGESP”), 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4, and borrows concepts from the framework established by the UGESP in the definitions of “impact ratio” and “selection rate.”

Under the AEDT Law, upon completion of a bias audit, and prior to using the automated employment decision tool, covered employers and employment agencies must make the date and summary of the results of the bias audit publicly available on the careers or job section of their website in a clear and conspicuous manner. The proposed rules clarify that publication may be made via an active hyperlink to a website containing the required information, as long as the link is clearly identified as linking to the results of the bias audit. The required information must remain posted for at least six months after the covered employer or employment agency uses the tool for an employment decision.

Required Notices

The AEDT Law also specifies that employers and employment agencies must notify candidates for employment and employees who reside in New York City as follows:

  1. at least ten business days prior to using an automated decision tool, that such a tool will be used to assess or evaluate the candidate or employee, and allow the individual to request an alternative selection process or accommodation;
  2. at least ten business days prior to use, the job qualifications and characteristics that the tool will use in the assessment or evaluation; and
  3. if not disclosed on the employer or employment agency’s website, information about the type of data collected for the tool, the source of such data, and the employer or employment agency’s data retention policy shall be available upon written request by the individual and be provided within thirty days of the written request.

Covered employers and employment agencies have expressed concern about the practical and administrative difficulties of providing the above notices in the fast-paced environment of today’s recruiting and hiring.

In apparent response to these concerns, the proposed rules clarify that the employer or employment agency may provide the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2) by:

  1. (a) in the case of candidates, including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website at least ten business days prior to the use of the tool, and (b) in the case of employees, including notice in a written policy or procedure that is provided to employees at least ten business days prior to use;
  2. including notice in a job posting at least ten days prior to using the tool; or
  3. (a) in the case of candidates, providing notice via U.S. mail or email at least ten business days prior to use of the tool; and (b) in the case of employees, providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or email at least ten business days prior to use.

In short, under the proposed rule, an employer or employment agency could comply with the AEDT Law by providing the required notice when first posting the job.

With respect to the notice requirement in paragraph (3), the proposed rules state that an employer or employment agency must provide notice to covered individuals by including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website, or by providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or by email within 30 days of receipt of a written request for such information. If notice is not posted on the website, the employer or agency must post instructions for how to make a written request for such information on its careers or job section of the website.

Finally, although the AEDT Law requires an employer or employment agency to allow covered individuals to request an alternative selection process, the proposed rules state that nothing requires an employer or employment agency to provide an alternative selection process.

Article By Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Robert J. O’Hara, Alexander J. Franchilli, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Reinventing the American Road Trip: What the Inflation Reduction Act Means for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) signifies a turning point in domestic efforts to tackle climate change. Within the multibillion-dollar package are robust investments in climate mitigation initiatives, such as production tax credits, investment tax credits for battery and solar cell manufacturers, tax credits for new and used electric vehicles (“EV”)1, automaker facility transition grants, and additional financing for the construction of new electric vehicle manufacturing facilities.2 One thing is abundantly clear, the IRA’s focus on stimulating domestic production of electric vehicles means that the marketplace for electric vehicles will see a dramatic change. The Biden Administration has set an ambitious target of 50% of EV sale shares in the U.S. by 2030. However, if electric vehicles are going to achieve mass market adoption, a central question remains — where is the infrastructure to support them?

Addressing gaps in EV Supply and EV Infrastructure

As it stands, the shortage of charging infrastructure is a substantial barrier in the push for mass consumer adoption of EVs.3 Experts estimate that in order to meet the Biden Administration’s EV sale target by 2030, America would require 1.2 million public EV chargers and 28 million private EV chargers by that year.4 Department of Energy data shows that approximately 50,000 EV public charging sites are currently operational in the United States.5 In comparison, gasoline fueling stations total more than 145,000.6 However, federal legislation such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”) passed earlier this year signifies a clear commitment to remedying this disparity. The BIL establishes a National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (“NEVI”) to provide funding to States and private entities to deploy EV-charging infrastructure and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate “data collection, access and reliability.”7 The Federal Highway Administration, the federal agency charged with implementing NEVI, proposed minimum standards and requirements that states must meet to spend NEVI funds:

  • Installation, operation and maintenance by qualified technicians of EV infrastructure

  • Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure

  • Network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure

  • Data collection pertaining to pricing, real-time availability and accessibility8

The goal of the proposed rule is to secure EV charging infrastructure that works seamlessly for industrial, commercial and consumer drivers. Combining the historic investments in clean energy and climate infrastructure in the BIL and IRA, the federal government has jumpstarted what will be a fundamental shift in how consumers use transportation. Earlier this week, the Biden Administration announced more than two-thirds of EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans from States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been approved ahead of schedule under NEVI.9 With this early approval, these states can now unlock more than $900 million in NEVI funding from FY22 and FY23 to help build EV chargers across highways throughout the country.10

Section 13404’s Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit

Building up the U.S. capacity to build EVs, and then ensuring people can use said vehicles more easily by shoring up EV infrastructure is a crucial facet of the Inflation Reduction Act. Section 13404 of the IRA provides an Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit that targets the accelerated installation of EV charging infrastructure and assets.11 Section 13404 extends existing alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit through 2032, and significantly restructures the credit by allowing taxpayers to claim a base credit of 6% for expenses up to $100,000 (for each piece refueling property located at a given facility) so long as the property is placed in service before Jan. 1, 2033.12 However, the alternative fuel property must be manufactured for use on public streets, roads and highways, but only if they are (1) intended for general public use, or (2) intended for exclusive use by government or commercial vehicles and (3) must be located in a qualifying census tract (i.e., low-income communities or non-urban areas).13 From a job creation standpoint, the IRA also provides an alternative bonus credit for taxpayers that meet certain wage requirements during the construction phase.14

The Future of EV Infrastructure

EV stations in city streets, parking garages and gas stations will become a prominent part of the nation’s infrastructure as it moves towards a green future. The effort will require coordination among municipal, state and federal policymakers. Even more, electric utilities must ensure that local infrastructure can support the additional strain on the grid. Utilities also have a direct interest in a cleaner, efficient, and less overburdened grid. Federal tax incentives, like the IRA, and subsides from states and local ordinances are integral to the implementation and construction of these networks. The private sector has already taken steps to do its part. In a recent study conducted by consulting company AlixPartners, as of June 2022, automakers and suppliers expect to invest at least $526 billion to fund the transition from gasoline powered vehicles to EVs through 2026.15 This is double the five-year EV investment forecast of $234 billion from 2020-2024.16 Even more, according to Bloomberg, not including deals that have disclosed financials, more than $4.8 billion has already been invested in the EV charging industry this year in the form of debt financing and acquisitions.17 Driven by fast growth and robust availability of government funds, financiers and large companies seeking to acquire EV charging companies, sense immense opportunity.18

FOOTNOTES

1“Electric Vehicle” is used interchangeably with the acronym “EV” throughout this article.

2 Isaacs-Thomas, I. (2022, August 11). What the Inflation Reduction act does for green energy. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/what-the-inflation-reduction-act-do…

3 Consumer Reports (2022, April). Breakthrough Energy: A Nationally Representative Multi-Mode Survey. https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/Cons…

4 Kampshoff, P., Kumar, A., Peloquin, S., & Sahdev, S. (2022, August 31). Building the electric-vehicle charging infrastructure America needs. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insight…

5 U.S Department of Energy. (2022). Alternative Fueling Station Locator. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Alternative Fueling Station Locator. https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC&ev_levels=all&…

6 American Petroleum Institute. (n.d.). Service station FAQs. Energy API. https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/consumer-information/consumer-re…

7 U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program fact sheet: Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/nevi_formula_prog…

8 The Office of the Federal Register of the National Archives and Records Administration and the U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2022, June 22). National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/22/2022-12704/national…

9 United States Department of Transportation. (2022, September 14). Biden-Harris Administration announces approval of First 35 state plans to build out EV charging infrastructure across 53,000 miles of Highways. United States Department of Transportation. https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-…

10 See Id.

11 As a note, “refueling property” is property used for the storage or dispensing of clean-burning fuel or electricity into the vehicle fuel tank or battery.  Clean-burning fuels include CNG, LNG, electricity, and hydrogen.

12 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, 117th Cong. § 13404 (2022); See also Wells Hall III, C., Holloway, M. D., Wagner, T., & Baldwin, E. (2022, August 10). Nelson Mullins tax report–Senate passes Inflation Reduction Act. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. https://www.nelsonmullins.com/idea_exchange/alerts/additional_nelson_mul…

13  Id.

14  Id.

15 AlixPartners, LLP. (2022, June 22). 2022 Alixpartners global automotive outlook. AlixPartners. https://www.alixpartners.com/media-center/press-releases/2022-alixpartne… See also Lienert, P. (2022, June 22). Electric vehicles could take 33% of global sales by 2028. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/electric-vehicles-…

16 Id.

17 Fisher, R. (2022, August 16). Electric car-charging investment soars driven by EV Growth, government funds. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/car-charging-investme…

18 Id.

Article By Lawrence L. Ostema and Jeffrey E. Joseph of Nelson Mullins

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Speaker Pelosi Expresses Concerns With Federal Privacy Bill’s Preemption Provision

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed concerns with certain features of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”) and its broad preemption provision, which as currently drafted would override the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and its subsequent voter- approved amendments.  The ADPPA was favorably reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in July by a vote of 53-2.  The bill has not yet been scheduled for a vote on the House floor. Speaker Pelosi “commended” the Energy and Commerce Committee for its efforts, while also praising California Democrats for having “won the right for consumers for the first time to be able to seek damages in court for violations of their privacy rights.”  Speaker Pelosi noted that California leads the nation in protecting consumer privacy and it was “imperative that California continues offering and enforcing the nation’s strongest privacy rights.”

Speaker Pelosi stated that she and others would be working with Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) to address concerns related to preserving  California privacy laws.  Although Speaker Pelosi’s comments cast doubt on the future of the ADPPA, we continue to believe that it will clear the House. We anticipate only modest tweaks to the preemption provision, which must be acceptable to the Republican leadership of the committee for the bill to move forward. As Speaker Pelosi noted, the bill contains a private right of action for consumers—the single most important provision to Republicans in return for strong preemption language. After more than a decade of effort, the Democratic leadership of the House will be hard pressed to let the perfect be the enemy of the really good.

Article By Kristin L. Bryan, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Kyle R. Fath of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

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

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

SEC Proposes to Clear-Up Clearing Agencies’ Governance to Mitigate Directors’ Potential Conflicts of Interest

Clearing agencies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will have to make governance changes to their boards of directors under a new rule proposed by the SEC on August 8, 2022.

The SEC proposed the new rule1 to mitigate the conflicts of interests inherent in clearing agency relationships. The rule follows episodes of market volatility in 2021 that included large fluctuations surrounding COVID-19 and the meme stock craze.

The new rule would amend Section 17Ad-25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) to require additional management and governance requirements for clearing agencies that register with the SEC. The proposed rules provide specific new governance requirements on clearing board composition, independent directors, nominating committees and risk management committees. The rule also requires the board to oversee relationships with critical service providers and includes a board obligation to consider various stakeholder views and inputs.

Rationale

The SEC’s rationale for proposing Rule 17Ad-25, titled Clearing Agency Governance and Conflicts of Interest, is to reduce the risk that conflicts of interest inherent in various clearing agency relationships substantially harm the security-based swaps or larger financial market. The SEC is proposing this rule to mitigate conflicts of interest, promote the fair representation of owners and participants in the governance of a clearing agency, identify responsibilities of the board, and increase transparency into clearing agency governance.

The SEC noted that those episodes of increased market volatility revealed certain vulnerabilities in the US securities market and the essential role clearing agencies play in managing the risk if securities transactions fail to clear.

The SEC observed three potential sets of conflicts of interest that the proposed rule attempts to address.

  1. The proposed rule addresses the different perspectives the various stakeholders involved in clearing agencies might have. In particular, a clearing agency owner’s potential interest in protecting the equity and continued operation of the clearing agency diverges from a participant’s potential interest in avoiding the allocation of losses from another defaulting participant. For instance, in the event of a loss, clearing agency participants might prefer to limit access to clearing, while owners may choose to expand the scope of products offered to collect fees.

  2. Larger clearing agency participants’ priorities may diverge significantly from the interests of smaller clearing agency participants. In particular, when a small number of dominant participants exercise control over a registered clearing agency concerning services provided by that clearing agency, those participants might promote margin requirements that are not commensurate with the risks they take, thereby indirectly limiting competition and increasing profit margins for themselves. In other words, a registered clearing agency dominated by a small number of large participants might make decisions designed to provide them with a competitive advantage.

  3. Certain participants may exert undue influence to limit access to the clearing agency based on their own interests, and thus could limit the benefits of the clearing agency to indirect participants.

Rule Requirements

The proposed rule would impose these seven requirements:

  1. define independence in the context of a director serving on the board of a registered clearing agency and require that a majority of directors on the board be independent, unless a majority of the voting rights distributed to shareholders of record are directly or indirectly held by participants of the registered clearing agency, in which case at least 34 percent of the board must be independent directors;

  2. establish requirements for a nominating committee, including with respect to the composition of the nominating committee, fitness standards for serving on the board, and documenting the process for evaluating board nominees;

  3. establish requirements for the function, composition, and reconstitution of the risk management committee;

  4. require policies and procedures that identify, mitigate or eliminate, and document the identification and mitigation or elimination of conflicts of interest;

  5. require policies and procedures that obligate directors to report potential conflicts promptly;

  6. require policies and procedures for the board to oversee relationships with service providers for critical services; and

  7. require policies and procedures to solicit, consider, and document the registered clearing agency’s consideration of the views of its participants and other relevant stakeholders regarding its governance and operations.

The proposing release will be published on SEC.gov and in the Federal Register. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposing release on the SEC’s website or 30 days following publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register, whichever period is longer.

FOOTNOTES

1 https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2022/34-95431.pdf

Article By Susan Light of Katten. Jacob C. Setton, an associate in the Financial Markets and Funds practice and candidate for admission to the New York State bar, also contributed to this advisory.

For more SEC and securities legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

What’s in the American Data Privacy and Protection Act?

Congress is considering omnibus privacy legislation, and it reportedly has bipartisan support. If passed, this would be a massive shake-up for American consumer privacy, which has been left to the states up to this point. So, how does the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) stack up against existing privacy legislation such as the California Consumer Privacy Act and the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act?

The ADPPA includes a much broader definition of sensitive data than we’ve seen in state-level laws. Some notable inclusions are income level, voicemails and text messages, calendar information, data relating to a known child under the age of 17, and depictions of an individual’s “undergarment-clad” private area. These enumerated categories go much further than recent state laws, which tend to focus on health and demographic information. One asterisk though – unlike other state laws, the ADPPA only considers sexual orientation information to be sensitive when it is “inconsistent with the individual’s reasonable expectation” of disclosure. It’s unclear at this point, for example, if a member of the LGBTQ+ community who is out to friends would have a “reasonable expectation” not to be outed to their employer.

Like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, the ADPPA includes a duty of data minimization on covered entities (the ADPPA borrows the term “covered entity” from HIPAA). There is a laundry list of exceptions to this rule, including one for using data collected prior to passage “to conduct internal research.” Companies used to kitchen-sink analytics practices may appreciate this savings clause as they adjust to making do with less access to consumer data.

Another innovation is a tiered applicability, in which all commercial entities are “covered entities,” but “large data holders” – those making over $250,000,000 gross revenue and that process either 5,000,000 individuals’ data or 200,000 individuals’ sensitive data – are subject to additional requirements and limitations, while “small businesses” enjoy additional exemptions. Until now, state consumer privacy laws have made applicability an all-or-nothing proposition. All covered entities, though, would be required to comply with browser opt-out signals, following a trend started by the California Privacy Protection Agency’s recent draft regulations. Additionally, individuals have a private right of action against covered entities to seek monetary and injunctive relief.

Finally, and controversially, the ADPPA explicitly preempts all state privacy laws. It makes sense – the globalized nature of the internet means that any less-stringent state law would become the exception that kills the rule. Still, companies that only recently finalized CCPA- and CPRA-compliance programs won’t appreciate being sent back to the drawing board.

Read the bill for yourself here.

Article By Blair Robinson, a non-lawyer intern in the Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Group at Robinson & Cole LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

The Inflation Reduction Act: How Do Tribal Communities Benefit?

On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”), ushering in substantial changes for tax law, climate resilience, healthcare, and more in the United States. According to the Biden administration’s press release, the new $750 billion legislation aims to lower everyday costs for families, insist that corporations pay their fair share, and combat the climate crisis. During the signing ceremony, President Biden stated, “With this law, the American people won and the special interests lost […] For a while people doubted whether any of that was going to happen, but we are in a season of substance.”

Notably, the legislation provides significant provisions for tribal communities and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Once the funding is appropriated by Congress, it will be directed toward drought mitigation programs, fish hatcheries, modernization of electric systems, and more for Native communities, including ones in Alaska and Hawaii.

How the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 Supports the Environment and Tribal Communities

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contains an array of provisions, including the reduction of drug prices, the lowering of energy costs, and, notably, federal infrastructure investments that benefit Native communities. Andrew M. VanderJack and Laura Jones, Co-Coordinators of Van Ness Feldman’s Native Affairs Practice, highlight the most significant facets of the bill: “This legislation provides some opportunities specifically for tribes and tribal entities, including programs related to climate resiliency and adaptation, electrification, and drought relief. For example, the Emergency Drought Relief program for Tribes extends direct financial assistance to tribal governments to address drinking water shortages and to mitigate the loss of tribal trust resources.”

Pilar Thomas, Partner in Quarles & Brady’s Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Practice Group, expanded on the most significant inclusions for Tribes: “[…] the creation of a Direct Pay tax credit payment program that allows Tribes to receive a payment equal to the clean energy technology tax credits – especially for solar, wind, storage, geothermal and EV charging stations; […] direct funding for electrification and climate resiliency through DOI and USDA; […] access to the greenhouse gas reduction fund, environmental and climate justice grants; and expanded energy efficiency tax benefits and rebates for tribes and tribal members.”

“Tribal governments are also eligible to apply for other programs such as the Clean Vehicle Credit program, the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction, and the State and Private Forestry Conservation Programs,” noted Mr. VanderJack and Ms. Jones.

How the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act Has Been Received by Tribal Communities

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act has received a warm reception from groups such as the National Indian Health Board and Native Organizers Alliance, who laud the bill’s potential to improve environmental, medical, and economic conditions for tribal communities, some of whom still lack access to electricity or clean water. The increase in funding will allow tribes to use green energy technology to increase climate resilience and decrease individual energy costs, while reducing the effects of environmental racism with risk assessments for drinking water and climate hazards. These infrastructural changes will stimulate economic development by creating new jobs. “With critical investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, we’re making sure the federal government steps up to support Native-driven climate resilience, advance tribal energy development, and fulfill its trust responsibility to Native communities,” said Senator and Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Chairman Brian Schatz.

“This legislation will result in hundreds of millions of funding available for Tribes, and non-profits that work with tribes and tribal communities to support the clean energy transition for tribal communities, reduce energy costs for tribal members, and create jobs,” said Ms. Thomas of Quarles & Brady. “The IRA will provide a substantial down payment for every tribe to take advantage of clean energy technologies, energy efficiency and energy savings, and climate resilient solutions for their communities and tribal members individually.  The new projects, technology implementation and economic development opportunities are substantial and will create long term community and economic development sustainable improvements in tribal communities.”

Some groups feel that the new legislation does not go far enough. In an open letter to President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Indigenous-led advocacy organization NDN Collective argued that Congress’ hesitance to fully reject fossil fuels undermines the stated goals of addressing climate change, a misstep that could disproportionately affect tribal communities at the frontlines of the environmental crisis. “We believe that moving away from investments in the fossil fuel and other extractive industries and reallocating the funding to further research and development will help us find the solutions we need for true decarbonization and large-scale equitable carbon emissions reductions,” the collective stated. “We are already aware of innovative, Indigenous-led solutions that just need the proper funding and support to be scaled and replicated.”

Challenges in Getting the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act Passed

Up to this point, the Inflation Reduction Act has faced significant challenges in Congress. The legislation is the product of extensive compromise over the Build Back Better Act within the Democratic party. The Build Back Better Bill was initially estimated to cost over $3 trillion, and ultimately, the Inflation Reduction Act was passed with a budget of $750 billion. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia held back his support of the bill until late July, and Republicans successfully blocked an aspect of the bill that would have capped the price of insulin for Americans with private health insurance. When presented to Congress, the vote was split by party lines with every Republican voting against the bill. Biden has criticized Republicans for this decision, saying at the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act, “every single Republican in the Congress sided with the special interests in this vote — every single one.”

Challenges for tribal governments remain as well, specifically concerning the IRA’s implementation. “Despite the incredible opportunity for tribes, major barriers remain including tribal internal capacity and capabilities, [and] federal regulatory hurdles (such as BIA leasing and easement approvals),” said Ms. Thomas.

“[…] Navigating the complexities of each program and actually obtaining funding is always the challenge,” said Mr. VanderJack and Ms. Jones of Van Ness Feldman. “Tribes and tribal entities should engage directly, whenever possible, with the grant funding agencies to make sure proposals are tailored to fit both program requirements and community needs.”

Early Assessment of How the IRA will Impact Tribal Communities

The Inflation Reduction Act, ultimately, provides meaningful resources and investments for tribal communities in a variety of ways. While the provisions are not as significant as COVID-19 relief and infrastructure funding that tribal governments have received in previous years, the new legislation is nonetheless beneficial. “While the federal grant funding is relatively small, the potential major impact is the ability to access funding through tax credit payments and rebates,” said Ms. Thomas. “This mechanism is critical as it is simplifies tribes’ access to funding (rather than, for example, seeking to obtain funding through the competitive grant programs).”

Article By Chandler Ford, Casey Karthaus, Crissonna Tennison, and Shelby Garrett of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC.

For more tribal law / indigenous peoples legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC