Legislation Archives - Page 9 of 19 - The National Law Forum

Why ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bills are Antithetical to an Equitable and Inclusive Education

According to a 2019 GLSEN national survey of LGBTQ+ students, nearly 60% of surveyed students reported they felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 43% because of their gender expression. Within the same survey, nearly all (98.8%) LGBTQ+ students reported hearing “gay” used in a negative way at school, 95% heard other homophobic remarks, and 87% heard transphobic remarks.

When I was an educator, it was essential to my practice that all my students felt safe. If I were to hear any negative remarks about a student or become aware one of my students felt unsafe due to their identity, it would be my ethical, and moral, obligation to do something to create a safer and more inclusive learning environment; a core part of my role as an educator was to teach empathy and compassion in my students. This could be as simple as having a classroom discussion about the choices of language and how using words such as “gay” with a negative connotation can be hurtful to their classmates. This could also mean sharing my own identity as a queer man so my LGBTQ+ students knew they had someone they could turn to for support, and to normalize queer identities for all my students and their families. Either of these actions would require I discuss the importance of accepting all sexual orientations and gender identities.

In other words, I would have to say “gay.” But in six states — as of now — I would not have been able to do this.

The state of Florida attracted national attention earlier this year with the adoption of H.B. 1557, the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, more commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The bill, which has since been signed into law, dictates classroom instruction by “school staff” on “sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Five other states, according to the Movement Advancement Project, have similar laws enacted and several more have bills pending in their state legislatures. Some proponents of these bills argue the legislation is necessary to ensure parents have greater say when, if, and how LGBTQ+ issues are discussed with their children.

Yet these laws are designed to ensure only some parents have greater say, as the parents of LGBTQ+ children are certainly not reflected in these efforts.

At a time when youth mental health is reaching a crisis, state legislatures are advancing bills that would perpetuate, and arguably exacerbate, harmful school-based experiences for LGBTQ+ youth and worsen their well-being. A 2022 survey by the Trevor Project found 45% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and over half of transgender and nonbinary youth considered suicide. The 2019 GLSEN survey also found LGBTQ+ students who experienced forms of victimization based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., being bullied, hearing homophobic or transphobic remarks, etc.) had lower levels of self-esteem, higher levels of depression, and were less likely to say they belonged in school.

Some may argue “Don’t Say Gay” bills would not preclude educators from addressing instances of homophobia or transphobia in their classrooms and try to suggest that prohibitions on such actions are not the intent of the bills. However, regardless of intent, these bills often have the insidious impact to “chill” educators’ actions out of fear they may run afoul of the law and open themselves to reprimands, including being terminated.

All students deserve to have a safe, supportive, and affirming learning environment. All educators should be empowered to protect their students, and not feel afraid to step in when they notice a student being bullied because of their identity. And every parent should have the resources to be a partner in their child’s education. Unfortunately, state laws such as the “Don’t Say Gay” bills will only stand in way of these notions from becoming realities.

It is impossible to support all students when LGBTQ+ children continue to be targeted merely because of their identities.

Article By Sean A. Worley of Nelson Mullins

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

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Takes Effect: What Importers Need to Know

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) is in effect as of June 21, 2022. Congress passed the Act in December 2021 to increase enforcement of longstanding U.S. policy prohibiting the importation of goods, or components thereof, made with forced labor and to create a “rebuttable presumption” that merchandise from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) or by an entity on the UFLPA Entity List is made with forced labor and thereby prohibited from entry into the United States. The rebuttable presumption applies to downstream products that incorporate inputs from XUAR, regardless of where the finished products are manufactured, including goods from outside XUAR in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), or in third countries. There is no de minimis provision in the law – any prohibited content, no matter how small, will make a product subject to the rebuttable presumption made by the law. If an importer can demonstrate by “clear and convincing” evidence that the goods were not produced wholly or in part by forced labor, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will grant an “exception” to the presumption. The UFLPA provides for increased detentions and seizures of merchandise and potential civil and criminal penalties. See prior GT Alerts on the UFLPA.

Pursuant to the UFLPA, a multi-agency task force chaired by the Department of Homeland Security was mandated to develop a strategy for the Act’s implementation. On June 17, in anticipation of the June 21 effective date, DHS released the “Strategy to Prevent the Importation of Goods Mined, Produced, or Manufactured with Forced Labor in the People’s Republic of China” (Enforcement Strategy), which includes:

An assessment of risk of importing goods mined, produced, or manufactured, wholly or in part, in the PRC; according to the strategy, complex supply chains that touch XUAR are “highly susceptible to contamination by goods made using forced labor.”
A list of entities affiliated with forced labor; therefore, their products are subject to the presumption that their goods are prohibited from entry. The Entity list will be updated multiple times per year and will be publicly available.
A list of high priority sectors and products including apparel and textiles, cotton and cotton products, polysilicon, and tomato products. Other products listed include footwear, nails, electronics, and toys.
Guidance to importers advising that companies need heightened due diligence to ensure compliance with UFLPA and to identify potential supply chain exposure to Xinjiang. Supply chain tracing is the general method to demonstrate that goods are free of inputs from Xinjiang, but CBP expects that barriers to supply chain tracing may make it difficult for importers to be compliant and has stated that third-party audits alone are insufficient to demonstrate due diligence.

Should CBP detain goods on suspicion of being made wholly or in part with forced labor, the importer has options. It can re-export the goods (up until CBP seizes them); it can abandon the goods; it can seek an “exception” for the goods, to get them released from CBP custody; it can also provide information to CBP demonstrating that the goods are not subject in any way to the Act. The evidence and documentation needed for the latter two must be “clear and convincing.”

It should be noted that in order to obtain an “exception” for goods that have been detained, an importer must meet all three of the following requirements:

Provide clear and convincing evidence that the detained goods were not made in whole or in part with forced labor, or were sourced from entities on the Entity List.
Fully and substantively respond to any questions from CBP.
Show that it has complied with all of the requirements set out in the Enforcement Strategy and CBP’s Operational Guidance (i.e., due diligence, supply chain tracing and management, etc.).

The Enforcement Strategy document provides importers with guidance in the following three areas:

Due diligence, effective supply chain tracing, and supply chain management measures to ensure that no goods violating the Act enter the importer’s supply chain.
The type, nature, and extent of evidence that demonstrates that goods originating in China were not mined (or grown), produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang.
The type, nature, and extent of evidence that demonstrates goods originating in China, including goods detained under Section 307 of the Tariff Act, were not mined (or grown), produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labor.

CBP has made it clear that should there be a detention, participants in the Customs and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program (C-TPAT) will be prioritized for review of submissions to rebut the presumption that the merchandise was made with forced labor.

Importers may wish to plan for contingencies should CBP detain imported merchandise, map complex supply chains and review purchase agreements and supplier codes of conduct.

Article By Laura Siegel Rabinowitz and Donald S. Stein of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

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

Auto Industry Picks up Capitol Hill Advocacy on Reports of Resurgence of Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) Proposal

Last week, General Motors Chair and CEO Marry Barra, Toyota Motor North America President and CEO Ted Ogawa, Ford Motor Company CEO James Farley, and Stellantis CEO Carlos Taveres sent a letter to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy revamping the industry’s advocacy for the inclusion of certain production tax credits ahead of a possible budget reconciliation package.

This letter comes on the heels of recent reports on Capitol Hill that the lynchpin to the Senate passing a budget reconciliation package, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), has had multiple in person conversations with Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer regarding a legislative path forward on the proposal.

The letter specifically advocated for the inclusion in any final BBB proposal of House-passed legislation, authored by Congressman Dan Kildee (D-MI-05) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) which would extend and build on current tax credits for EVs. Specifically, the provision would make consumers eligible for a $7,500 credit for eligible EV purchases for the first five years and an additional $4,500 credit if the EV is manufactured by a unionized facility, and an additional $500 credit if the EV uses an American made battery. In addition, the proposal would amend the current credit authority to make the credits refundable and transferrable at the time of purchase rather than consumers having to claim the credit on their tax return. Finally, the proposal would bar consumers making over $400,000 from eligibility and creates EV price limits to preclude luxury EVs from eligibility.

While this provision enjoys broad Democrat support in the Senate, Senator Manchin, foreign automakers and Tesla have publicly criticized the $4,500 bonus for union made vehicles.

Additional Electric Vehicle Infrastructure funding that could be included in the bill include:

Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Rebate Program –$2 billion for eligible entities for covered expenses associated with EV supplies including grounding conductors, attachment plugs and other fittings, electrical equipment, batteries, among other things;
Electric Vehicle Charging Equity Program – $1 billion to provide technical assistance, education and outreach, or grants for projects that increase deployment and accessibility of EV supply equipment in underserved or disadvantaged communities;
General Services Administration Clean Vehicle Fleet program – $5 billion for GSA for the procurement of EVs and related infrastructure for the Federal Fleet (excluding USPS and DOD vehicles);
United States Postal Service Clean Vehicle Fleet and Facility Maintenance – $3 billion for the USPS to purchase electric delivery vehicles and $4 billion for the purchase of related infrastructure; and
District of Columbia Clean Vehicle Fleet – $10 million for the District of Columbia for the procurement of EVs and related infrastructure.

While it is unclear what would be in a final BBB deal or if it would have the votes to pass the House and the Senate, industry representatives are descending on Capitol Hill to push for critical funding and tax provisions that could have significant benefits to their respective industries, especially those provisions that could lower costs for producers and consumers in the current economic climate.

Article By William Ball of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

The Intersection of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Davis-Bacon Act Requirements for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors

On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, which is popularly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”).

The BIL is estimated to create an additional 800,000 jobs. The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) contends that such new jobs will “expand the middle class, revitalize our nation’s transportation, communications and utility systems and build a more resilient, reliable, and environmentally sound future.” The White House asserts that the BIL will provide protection to “critical labor standards on construction projects,” as a substantial portion of the construction projects included in the BIL will be subject to requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (“DBA” or the “Act”).

While the BIL provides new revenue sources and opportunities for construction projects, federal contractors and subcontractors should ensure that their businesses comply with the DBA’s prevailing wage rates and labor standards requirements.

Scope and Coverage of DBA

In its simplest form, the DBA, enacted in 1931, requires federal contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits to certain construction workers employed on certain federal contracts. The DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) administers and enforces the Act’s requirements on federally funded and assisted construction projects. The DBA applies to contracts:

Which the Federal Government or the District of Columbia is a party;
For the construction, alteration, or repair, such as painting and decorating, of public buildings and public works to which the Federal Government or the District of Columbia is a party;
Involving the employment of mechanics, laborers, and other workers that engage in manual or physical labor (except for individuals performing administrative, clerical, professional, or management work such as superintendents, project managers, engineers, or office staff); and
Which are in excess of $2,000.

With respect to the DBA applying to federal contracts above $2,000, this value threshold only applies to the initial federal contract. If the threshold is met, however, then the DBA applies to any lower-tier subcontracts even if the value of the subcontract is less than $2,000.

Requirements for Contractors and Subcontractors

There are various requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors under the DBA, which the United States Supreme Court has described as “a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers.” The Act was designed to protect construction workers’ wage standards from federal contractors who may base their contract bids on wage rates that are lower than the local wage level. Under the DBA, federal contractors and subcontractors are required, among other things, to do the following:

Pay covered workers who work on the work site the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits that are listed in the applicable wage determinations, which are provided by the WHD (the prevailing wage rate consists of both the basic hourly rate of pay and any fringe benefits to bona fide third-party plans, which may include medical insurance; life and disability insurance; pensions on retirement or death; compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity; or other bona fide fringe benefits – bona fide fringe benefits, however, do not include payments made by employer contractors or subcontractors that are required by other federal, state, or local laws such as required contributions to unemployment insurance);
Maintain accurate payroll records for employees that must be submitted to the contracting agency on a weekly basis (within seven days following the regular pay date for the particular workweek), which must include the following for covered employees: (i) name; (ii) classification; (iii) daily and weekly hours worked; and (iv) deductions made and actual wages paid (there are additional recordkeeping requirements for federal contractors who employ apprentices or trainees under approved DOL programs);
- Federal contractors and subcontractors are also required to preserve the payroll records for three years following the completion of the covered work, provide accessibility to the records upon request by the DOL or its representatives, and allow the DOL or its representatives to interview employees during work hours.
- Federal contractors and subcontractors can use the WHD’s Form WH-347 to satisfy the weekly reporting requirements.
With respect to prime or general contractors, they must ensure that specific contract clauses and the applicable wage determinations are inserted into any lower-tier subcontracts (the contract clauses cover the following: (i) construction wage rate requirements; (ii) withholding of funds; (iii) payrolls and basic records; (iv) apprentices and trainees; (v) compliance with requirements under the Copeland Act; (vi) requirements for subcontracts; (vii) contract termination – debarment; (viii) compliance with construction wage rate requirements and related regulations; (ix) disputes concerning labor standards; and (x) certification of eligibility); and
Post a notice of the prevailing wages as to every classification of worker and an “Employee Rights under the DBA” poster in a prominent location that is easily accessible to the covered workers at the work site.

Practical Consideration in Compliance with DBA

Federal contractors and subcontractors should ensure that covered workers are properly classified for the work such individuals perform and paid in accordance with the prevailing wage rate for their classification.

Employers will often face recordkeeping challenges when they have nonexempt employees who perform covered (manual) work and non-covered (administrative) work in the same workweek.

In such instances, the employer must determine whether the employee is salaried or paid hourly. If the employee is salaried, the employer must determine whether the employee’s salary is greater than or equal to the prevailing wage rate for the employee’s classification. If not, the employer contractor is required to increase the employee’s pay for the week the covered work is performed.

Likewise, if the employee is paid hourly, then the employer must ensure the employee’s hourly rate is greater than or equal to the prevailing wage rate for the employee’s classification.

Federal contractors and subcontractors could face various consequences due to their failure to comply with the DBA, ranging from termination of the federal contract and debarment to a contracting agency withholding money due to the contractor to cover back wages due to employees as well as criminal prosecution. Accordingly, federal contractors and subcontractors should consult with legal counsel to ensure they comply with the various DBA requirements for any covered contracts.

Article By Xavier D. Lightfoot and Devon D. Williams of Ward and Smith, P.A.

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

Heated Debate Surrounds Proposed Federal Privacy Legislation

As we previously reported on the CPW blog, the leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of proposed federal privacy legislation, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), on June 3, 2022. Signaling potential differences amongst key members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) withheld her support. Staking out her own position, Cantwell is reportedly floating an updated version of the Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act (“COPRA”), originally proposed in 2019.

Early Stakeholder Disagreement

As soon as a discussion draft of the ADPPA was published, privacy rights organizations, civil liberty groups, and businesses entered the fray, drawing up sides for and against the bill. The ACLU came out as an early critic of the legislation. In an open letter to Congress sent June 10, the group urged caution, arguing that both the ADPPA and COPRA contain “very problematic provisions.” According to the group, more time is required to develop truly meaningful privacy legislation, as evidenced by “ACLU state affiliates who have been unable to stop harmful or effectively useless state privacy bills from being pushed quickly to enactment with enormous lobbying and advertising support of sectors of the technology industry that resist changing a business model that depends on consumers not having protections against privacy invasions and discrimination.” To avoid this fate, the ACLU urges Congress to “bolster enforcement provisions, including providing a strong private right of action, and allow the states to continue to respond to new technologies and new privacy challenges with state privacy laws.”

On June 13, a trio of trade groups representing some of the largest tech companies sent their open letter to Congress, supporting passage of a federal privacy law, but ultimately opposing the ADPPA. Contrary to the position taken by the ACLU, the industry groups worry that the bill’s inclusion of a private right of action with the potential to recover attorneys’ fees will lead to litigation abuse. The groups took issue with other provisions as well, such as the legislation’s restrictions on the use of data derived from publicly-available sources and the “duty of loyalty” to individuals whose covered data is processed.

Industry groups and consumer protection organizations had the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the ADPPA in a public hearing on June 14. Video of the proceedings and prepared testimony of the witnesses are available here. Two common themes arose in the witnesses’ testimony: (1) general support for federal privacy legislation; and (2) opposition to discrete aspects of the bill. As has been the case for the better part of a decade in which Congress has sought to draft a federal privacy bill, two fundamental issues continue to drive the debate and must be resolved in order for the legislation to become law: the private right of action to enforce the law and preemption of state laws or portions of them. . While civil rights and privacy advocacy groups maintain that the private right of action does not go far enough and that federal privacy legislation should not preempt state law, industry groups argue that a private right of action should not be permitted and that state privacy laws should be broadly preempted.

The Path Forward

The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to mark up the draft bill the week of June 20. We expect the subcommittee to approve the draft bill with little or no changes. The full Energy and Commerce Committee should complete work on the bill before the August recess. Given the broad bipartisan support for the legislation in the House, we anticipate that the legislation, with minor tweaks, is likely to be approved by the House, setting up a showdown with the Senate after a decade of debate.

With the legislative session rapidly drawing to a close, the prospects for the ADPPA’s passage remain unclear. Intense disagreement remains amongst key constituency groups regarding important aspects of the proposed legislation. Yet, in spite of the differences, a review of the public comments to date regarding the ADPPA reveal one nearly unanimous opinion: the United States needs federal privacy legislation. In light of the fact that most interested parties agree that the U.S. would benefit from federal privacy legislation, Congress has more incentive than ever to reach compromise regarding one of the proposed privacy bills.

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

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

By Law, Everything Is Possible In California

The California Civil Code includes a number of decidedly gnomic provisions. Section 1597 is one of these. It purports to answer the question of what is possible:

Everything is deemed possible except that which is impossible in the nature of things.

The problem with the statute is that it doesn’t fully answer the question because to know what is possible, one must know what is impossible and the statute doesn’t provide a definition of impossibility. In this regard, I am reminded of the following lines from James Joyce’s Ulysses:

But can those have been possible seeing that they never were? Or was that only possible which came to pass?

But why define what is possible? The reason is that Civil Code requires that the object of a contract must, among other things, be possible by the time that it is to be performed. Cal. Civ. Code § 1596. When a contract that has a single object that is impossible of performance, the entire contract is void. Cal. Civ. Code § 1598.

Happy Bloomsday!

Today is Bloomsday. Joyce chose June 16, 1904 as the day on which most (but not all) of the action in Ulysses takes place. It is called Bloomsday because the hero of the novel is Leopold Bloom. It was on June 16, 1904 that Joyce and his future wife, Nora Barnacle, had their first date (and intimate contact).

Finn’s Hotel in Dublin, where Nora worked in 1904

Article By Keith Paul Bishop of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

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

States Target Infant Formula Price Gouging

There has been a nationwide shortage of infant formula following a recall and temporary closure of a major infant formula manufacturing facility in February 2022. This facility supplied as much as 40% of the nation’s infant formula. In the wake of these events, state attorneys general are on the lookout for unlawful price gouging of infant formula. Sellers of infant formula should make sure that they do not inadvertently run afoul of state price gouging restrictions.

State price gouging laws prohibit price increases above certain thresholds during a period of emergency. Several state governments have recently issued declarations or proclamations that trigger price increase limitations for infant formula, including in California (CA Exec. Order N-10-22, 6/7/2022), Oregon (OR Exec. Procl., 5/13/2022), Colorado (CO Exec. Order D-2022-021, 5/25/2022), New Jersey (NJ Exec. Order No. 296, 5/17/2022), and Kentucky (KY Exec. Order 2022-321, 6/9/2022). Each of these states has a different price gouging restriction. For instance, infant formula sold in California cannot exceed the February 17, 2022 price by more than 10% except in certain limited circumstances. Other states may have a different price increase threshold or a different benchmark date. Multi-state sellers must take care to comply with the restrictions in each state.

Several states, such as Colorado and Nevada, enacted new price gouging laws in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-730; NRS § 598.09235. Enforcers have not had much experience enforcing these statutes, which may mean greater uncertainty for sellers in those states.

Most, but not all states have a price gouging law. In states that do not have a price gouging law, attorneys general will often seek to enforce their state’s unfair or deceptive trade practices act against reports of price gouging. For example, the attorney general of New Mexico, a state without a price gouging law, issued a press release on May 31, 2022 announcing that he is investigating complaints regarding infant formula price gouging. Similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, the infant formula shortage is triggering a variety of different price gouging restrictions in different states at the same time. Navigating the differences from state-to-state can be challenging, particularly in light of the new laws and amended laws that have been recently enacted. Sellers should review their normal pricing practices and make necessary changes to avoid inadvertently running afoul of the restrictions in a particular state.

Article By Leo Caseria and Thomas L. Tyson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more antitrust and trade regulation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Constitutionality of FTC’s Structure and Procedures Under SCOTUS Review

Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have authority to enforce Section 7 of the Clayton Act by investigating and challenging mergers where the effect of such transaction “may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.”

However, the enforcement paths of these two federal agencies differ markedly. DOJ pursues all aspects of its enforcement actions in the federal court system. The FTC, on the other hand, only uses the federal district courts to seek injunctive relief, but otherwise follows its own internal administrative process that combines the investigatory, prosecutorial, adjudicative, and appellate functions within a single agency.

Whether a transaction is subjected to DOJ or FTC review is determined by a “clearance” process with no public visibility. To many, including entities in the health care industry—and, in particular, parties to hospital mergers that are now routinely “cleared” to the FTC (exemplified by two recently filed enforcement actions against hospitals in New Jersey and Utah)—this process appears to be arbitrary. It is also particularly daunting because the FTC has not lost an administrative action in over a quarter-century. Because of the one-sided nature and duration of these administrative proceedings, most enforcement actions brought against merging hospitals rise or fall at the injunctive relief stage. This process also appears to embolden the FTC into taking unprecedented actions, including the pursuit of enforcement remedies against parties to abandoned transactions.

However, this may soon change. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case that raises a forceful constitutional challenge to the FTC’s structure and procedures. The Supreme Court recently agreed to combine the briefing schedule of this case with a similar case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of the administrative process of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The outcome of these cases may fundamentally alter the FTC’s enforcement process.

Article By E. John Steren and Patricia M. Wagner of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more antitrust and trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Is Coming… Are You Ready? CBP Issues Hints at the Wave of Enforcement To Come

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued some guidance relating to its enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) prior to June 21, 2022, the effective date of the rebuttable presumption.

What to Know

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued some guidance relating to its enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) prior to June 21, 2022, the effective date of the rebuttable presumption.
The new guidance imposes tighter timelines and a higher burden of evidence on importers to rebut the presumption that merchandise was produced with forced labor. If CBP does not make a decision within specific timeframes, goods will automatically be deemed excluded.
CBP is expected to issue additional technical guidance at the end of May or early June. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also expected to issue guidance closer to June 21, 2022.
CBP is scheduled to host informational webinars detailing their UFLPA guidance in the coming weeks.

What’s New: Tighter Timelines

While US importers were eagerly anticipating the issuance of technical guidance regarding implementation of the UFLPA from CBP last week, which is now expected this week, CBP did post a new guidance document summarizing the UFLPA and forced labor Withhold Release Orders (WRO) enforcement mechanisms. Specifically, CBP’s authority to detain merchandise under the UFLPA will be pursuant to 19 CFR § 151.16, which provides for a much different timeline for the detention of merchandise than the WRO process. Under this process, if Customs does not make a timely decision regarding admissibility, goods are automatically excluded.

UFLPA Timeline Enforcement under 19 CFR § 151.16

Number of Days	Actions
5 Days from Presentation for Examination	CBP must decide whether to release or detail merchandise If the merchandise is not released, it is detained
5 Days after Decision to Release or Detain	CBP will issue a notice to importer advising them of: The initiation of detention Date merchandise examined Reason for detention Anticipated length of detention Nature of tests and inquiries to be conducted Information to accelerate disposition
	Upon written request, CBP must provide importer with testing procedures, methodologies used, and testing results
Within 30 Days of Examination	CBP will make a final determination as to the admissibility of merchandise If CBP does not make a determination within the 30-day period, the merchandise will be deemed excluded This means any submission to rebut the presumption should be made before this 30 day period
Within 180 Days of CBP Determination/Exclusion	Importers may protest CBP’s final determination
Within 30 Days After Protest Submitted	The protest is deemed denied if CBP does not grant or deny the protest within 30 days
Within 180 Days after the Date the Protest is Denied	The importer may commence a court action contesting the denied protest (28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)) In a court action, CBP must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an admissibility decision has been reached for good cause Customs can decide to grant the protest after the deemed denial but before a court case is filed

This is a much shorter timeline than the WRO process. Importantly, a company contesting CBP’s detention of merchandise pursuant to the UFLPA would be required to submit documentation to rebut the presumption within the 30-day period that CBP is assessing admissibility, whereas the WRO process permits 90 days. Like the WRO process, the importer may also file a protest 180 days after CBP makes its final determination regarding the exclusion.

CBP Listening Session: A Higher Burden of Evidence

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022, CBP provided information regarding the publication of guidance and enforcement of the UFLPA:

CBP Publication of Guidance. CBP’s guidance regarding its enforcement of the rebuttable presumption and the UFLPA is scheduled to be published the week of May 30.
DHS Publication of Guidance. DHS guidance will be published on or about June 21, 2022, which will include information relating to supply chain due diligence, importer guidance, and the entity lists.
Clear and Convincing Evidence Required to Rebut the Presumption that Merchandise was Produced with Forced Labor. It was confirmed that the UFLPA will have a much higher burden of evidence required to rebut the presumption that merchandise was produced with forced labor than that of a WRO. Any exception to the rebuttable presumption must be reported to Congress, and thus the level of evidence that will be required to overcome the rebuttable presumption is very high. As a practical matter, it appears that very few detained entries will be released. Importers are advised to start conducting due diligence on supply chains in order to ensure that they will be able to obtain documentation should merchandise be detained once the rebuttable presumption goes into effect. Importantly, products that are subject to an existing WRO from Xinjiang will now be enforced under the UFLPA process instead of the WRO process.
Evidence Required if Merchandise is Detained. The forthcoming guidance will set forth information regarding how an importer may meet the exception to the rebuttable presumption and to demonstrate that merchandise was not produced with forced labor, by meeting the following three criteria:
- Demonstrate compliance with the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force/DHS strategy;
- Demonstrate compliance with CBP’s guidance and any inquiries that CBP raises; and
- Provide clear and convincing evidence that the supply chain in question is free of forced labor.
Binding Rulings. Importers may apply for a binding ruling to confirm or request an exception to the rebuttable presumption under the UFLPA. Although CBP is still finalizing the process for importers to apply for a binding ruling, importers would be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that merchandise is not produced with forced labor. If the ruling is granted, it applies to future shipments for the specific supply chain in question.
Known Importer Letters and Detention Notices. Going forward, CBP will not issue Known Importer letters, and CBP will notify importers that merchandise is subject to the UFLPA through the issuance of detention notices.
Detention of Merchandise. If goods are detained by CBP because they are suspected of having a nexus to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), importers may either provide clear and convincing evidence that merchandise was not produced with forced labor or export the products. If detained products that fall under the UFLPA are comingled with other products that are not subject to the UFLPA, importers may request the segregation of the merchandise that is not subject to the UFLPA.
Chain of CBP Review for Importer Submissions Relating to Detained Merchandise. Chain of CBP review for the request of an exception to the rebuttable presumption has not been finalized yet. However, importers will be required to submit evidence that rebuts the presumption that merchandise was produced with forced labor to the applicable CBP Port Director. For the moment, the CBP Commissioner is the final individual who can ultimately make an exception to the rebuttable presumption, but CBP is deciding if it will delegate this responsibility to any additional persons.

Upcoming CBP Informational Webinars

CBP will be holding three webinar sessions, all covering the same material, to discuss and review its guidance relating to the UFLPA. The dates of the webinars and the registration links are listed below.

Article By Angela M. Santos, Christine E. Hintze, and Jodi Tai of ArentFox Schiff LLP

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

Comparing and Contrasting the State Laws: Does Pseudonymized Data Exempt Organizations from Complying with Privacy Rights?

Some organizations are confused as to the impact that pseudonymization has (or does not have) on a privacy compliance program. That confusion largely stems from ambiguity concerning how the term fits into the larger scheme of modern data privacy statutes. For example, aside from the definition, the CCPA only refers to “pseudonymized” on one occasion – within the definition of “research” the CCPA implies that personal information collected by a business should be “pseudonymized and deidentified” or “deidentified and in the aggregate.”[1] The conjunctive reference to research being both pseudonymized “and” deidentified raises the question whether the CCPA lends any independent meaning to the term “pseudonymized.” Specifically, the CCPA assigns a higher threshold of anonymization to the term “deidentified.” As a result, if data is already deidentified it is not clear what additional processing or set of operations is expected to pseudonymize the data. The net result is that while the CCPA introduced the term “pseudonymization” into the American legal lexicon, it did not give it any significant legal effect or status.

Unlike the CCPA, the pseudonymization of data does impact compliance obligations under the data privacy statutes of Virginia, Colorado, and Utah. As the chart below indicates, those statutes do not require that organizations apply access or deletion rights to pseudonymized data, but do imply that other rights (e.g., opt out of sale) do apply to such data. Ambiguity remains as to what impact pseudonymized data has on rights that are not exempted, such as the right to opt out of the sale of personal information. For example, while Virginia does not require an organization to re-identify pseudonymized data, it is unclear how an organization could opt a consumer out of having their pseudonymized data sold without reidentification.

ENDNOTES

[1] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(ab)(2) (West 2021). It should be noted that the reference to pseudonymizing and deidentifying personal information is found within the definition of the word “Research,” as such it is unclear whether the CCPA was attempting to indicate that personal information will not be considered research unless it has been pseudonymized and deidentified, or whether the CCPA is mandating that companies that conduct research must pseudonymize and deidentify. Given that the reference is found within the definition section of the CCPA, the former interpretation seems the most likely intent of the legislature.

[2] The GDPR does not expressly define the term “sale,” nor does it ascribe particular obligations to companies that sell personal information. Selling, however, is implicitly governed by the GDPR as any transfer of personal information from one controller to a second controller would be considered a processing activity for which a lawful purpose would be required pursuant to GDPR Article 6.

[3] Va. Code 59.1-577(B) (2022).

[4] Utah Code Ann. 13-61-303(1)(a) (2022).

[5] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-573(A)(1) through (4)

[6] C.R.S. 6-1-1307(3) (2022) (exempting compliance with C.R.S. Section 6-1-1306(1)(b) to (1)(e)).

[7] Utah Code Ann. 13-61-303(1)(c) (exempting compliance with Utah Code Ann. 13-61-202(1) through (3)).

[8] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-573(A)(1) through (4)

[9] C.R.S. 6-1-1307(3) (2022) (exempting compliance with C.R.S. Section 6-1-1306(1)(b) to (1)(e)).

[10] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-573(A)(1) through (4)

[11] C.R.S. 6-1-1307(3) (2022) (exempting compliance with C.R.S. Section 6-1-1306(1)(b) to (1)(e)).

[12] Utah Code Ann. 13-61-303(1)(c) (exempting compliance with Utah Code Ann. 13-61-202(1) through (3)).

[13] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-574).

[14] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-574).

Article By David A. Zetoony of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

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

Category: Legislation

Why ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bills are Antithetical to an Equitable and Inclusive Education

Like this:

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Takes Effect: What Importers Need to Know

Like this:

Auto Industry Picks up Capitol Hill Advocacy on Reports of Resurgence of Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) Proposal

Like this: