The National Law Forum

House and Senate Hold Hearings on EPA’s FY 2025 Budget Request

On April 30, 2024, the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held a hearing on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held a separate hearing on EPA’s FY 2025 budget request on May 1, 2024, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held its own hearing on May 8, 2024. On May 15, 2024, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials held a hearing. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan testified before both of the House Subcommittees, the Senate Subcommittee, and the Senate Committee (written testimony is hyperlinked).

April 30, 2024, House Subcommittee Hearing

During the April 30, 2024, House Subcommittee hearing, Ranking Member Chellie Pingree (D-ME) asked for an update on EPA’s risk assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolids. Regan stated that EPA is working on issuing it in final in 2024, and it will include a focus on certain PFAS to help EPA understand better the specific risks posed to farmers and the uptake in crops and livestock. Regan noted that EPA is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to research the risk from biosolids application. EPA intends to hold the polluters responsible for the PFAS accountable and does not want farmers, water systems, or taxpayers in affected communities to bear the burden of the contamination.

As reported in our November 3, 2023, blog item, on November 2, 2023, EPA announced that it granted a petition filed under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address the use of the chemical N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD) in tires. Representative Derek Kilmer (D-WA) asked whether EPA still planned to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) under TSCA Section 6 by the end of 2024 to obtain more information to inform a subsequent regulatory action. Regan stated that EPA expects to issue the ANPRM by fall 2024.

May 1, 2024, Senate Subcommittee Hearing

During the May 1, 2024, Senate Subcommittee hearing, Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) asked Regan to explain how EPA will address PFAS contamination under the FY 2025 budget request. Regan noted that EPA recently issued its first-ever National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), which will reduce PFAS exposure to over 100 million people. EPA also announced grants available to help smaller communities comply with the NPDWR. According to Regan, EPA needs the resources and staff to have a comprehensive approach to protect water quality from PFAS. Regan stated that EPA would use the funding to continue to collect scientific evidence and to study how to design technology and health-based standards to protect as many people as possible from different forms of PFAS.

Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) noted that during a 2023 Senate hearing, Regan testified that EPA had an additional 29 PFAS on its radar for a similar drinking water update and asked Regan about the status of the rulemaking. Regan stated that through the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, EPA is monitoring drinking water in communities across the United Sates for these 29 PFAS and that EPA intends to pursue regulation for these PFAS.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asked Regan about the key funding increases included in the FY 2025 budget request for some of EPA’s core programs. Regan stated that the increases are intended to allow EPA to keep up with recent progress that it has made. While EPA recently issued the NPDWR for six PFAS, there are an additional 29 PFAS being monitored, and thousands more. EPA wants to ensure the safety of chemicals before they hit the market, and that is one of the places where EPA has a deficit in terms of staffing. According to Regan, EPA is getting more requests from agricultural communities about herbicides and pesticides.

Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) stated that EPA’s recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) proposals, such as the Herbicide Strategy, could impose hundreds of millions of dollars in new restrictions on farmers. Britt asked Regan how EPA would implement Congress’s bipartisan instructions in the FY 2024 appropriations report to consider best available data on pesticide usage, conservation practices, and real-world studies on spray drift and water concentrations. Regan testified that previous EPA decisions spanning decades and court rulings have put EPA in a precarious position. According to Regan, EPA is speaking with the farming and agricultural community and has come up with strategies that have received positive feedback. Britt asked whether EPA would consider appointing designated non-federal representatives to help EPA meet its ESA responsibilities. Regan responded that EPA needs more staff and resources to respond to court decisions and that the particular EPA office is down to levels from the early 2000s. Regan stated that he would need to talk through the use of non-federal representatives and agreed to discuss the issue with Britt.

Subcommittee Chair Jeff Merkley (D-OR) asked Regan what Congress can do to accelerate a solution to replace 6PPD with something that works as well without harming salmon. Regan stated that EPA intends to publish an ANPRM by fall 2024 and that EPA is also researching mitigation efforts to fill in the gap until it can take regulatory action.

Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) noted that in its FY 2024 budget request, EPA proposed a significant decrease in discretionary funding because of new revenues coming in from the Superfund tax, while the FY 2025 request includes additional funding for the program. Murkowski asked Regan for his view of the long-term funding outlook for the Superfund program. Regan testified that the tax collections for the first two years were lower than forecasted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Because of the gap, for FY 2025, EPA has requested additional funding.

May 8, 2024, Senate Committee Hearing

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) described EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as flawed, stating that this would place the financial burden on passive receivers such as water utilities. More information on the designation and on EPA’s PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA is available in our April 23, 2024, memorandum.

Committee Chair Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) asked Regan to describe the impact that the FY 2024 funding levels had on the TSCA program and what EPA could accomplish if it received the full amount requested in the FY 2025 budget request and maximized revenue collection through the recently updated TSCA fees rule. Regan stated that EPA received a small increase for TSCA in the FY 2022 and 2023 budgets, and it more than doubled the number of chemical reviews that it did each month. Without the funding in the FY 2025 budget request, EPA will see slower approval of new chemistries, especially for those companies in the semi-conductor, automotive, and battery sectors.

May 15, 2024, House Subcommittee Hearing

During the hearing held by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY) asked Regan what EPA is doing to address the backlog of new chemical reviews and what Congress can do to support EPA. Regan stated that with the budget increases that EPA received in 2022 and 2023, it more than doubled the number of new chemicals reviewed each month. According to Regan, EPA has reduced the backlog by half and prioritized new chemistries for the semi-conductor, automotive, and battery manufacturing sectors. According to Regan, without the funding in the FY 2025 budget request, EPA will see slower approval of new chemicals.

Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that the reinstated Superfund tax has brought in lower receipts than projected by the Treasury and asked how EPA is adapting to the difference between the Treasury’s forecast and the actual funds collected. Regan testified that EPA is working with the Treasury Department to refine its estimates. According to Regan, the $300 million in the FY 2025 budget request will fill in the gap between the projected and actual tax receipts. Without the additional funding, Regan stated that there would be a slowdown in EPA’s ability to clean up Superfund sites. Pallone then asked Regan what the designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances and EPA’s enforcement policy mean for different sectors. Regan responded that EPA is focused on the manufacturers responsible for the PFAS and will not pursue enforcement actions against sectors such as farmers or water systems.

Representative Randy Weber (R-TX) asked about EPA’s final rule amending the TSCA risk evaluation framework and its removal of the definition of “best available science.” Regan stated that he would have to get more context to respond to Weber. More information on EPA’s final rule is available in our May 14, 2024, memorandum.

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) asked Regan to comment on the almost 400 premanufacture notifications (PMN) awaiting a risk determination and the more than 90 percent that have passed the statutory deadline of 90 days. According to Regan, the issue predates the Biden-Harris Administration. Regan repeated that with the additional resources from Congress in 2022 and 2023, EPA has more than doubled the reviews completed each month.

Representative John Curtis (R-UT) noted that applications in EPA’s New Chemicals Program have dropped from 600 annually to just over 200 and that in the last two calendar years, EPA made 95 and 101 determinations, respectively. According to Curtis, although EPA is required by law to return fees if it misses deadlines, it has never returned the fee to an applicant when EPA has missed the deadline because applicants coincidentally suspend or withdraw their applications before the deadline. Curtis asked Regan to explain the coincidence of PMNs being suspended or withdrawn just in time to allow EPA to keep the money. Regan stated that he was unaware that applications were being withdrawn from EPA and committed to looking into it. Curtis stated that he has been told that EPA has effectively threatened applicants by phone to suspend or withdraw their applications and stated he would like Regan to look into this and report back. Regan committed to doing so. Curtis followed up by asking about EPA’s assumption that it can charge user fees covering 25 percent of the TSCA program’s budget, regardless of the cost. Regan responded that he is not sure that he agrees with the premise and that he needs to look at EPA’s performance with the budget that it did receive. Regan agreed to have a deeper conversation with Curtis on the topic.

Commentary

The hearings for EPA’s FY 2025 budget request were similar to the hearings for EPA’s FY 2024 budget request. Republicans pressed EPA on why it needs additional funding, criticizing the cost and reach of its current rulemakings, while Regan highlighted EPA’s obligations under federal statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, TSCA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the ESA, as well as recent court decisions. On balance, no new information emerged.

UK Regulators Publish Final Securitisation Rules

On 30 April 2024, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a policy statement (PS24/4) setting out its final firm-facing rules relating to securitisations and summarising feedback to its earlier consultation for the UK securitisation markets (CP23/17). The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA and together with the FCA, the Regulators) also published a policy statement, in parallel with PS24/4, on its final firm-facing rules for those firms over which it has supervisory responsibility (PS7/24). This also follows the PRA’s own parallel consultation (CP15/23).

Background

As part of the UK’s post-Brexit regulatory reforms, the UK government is working to repeal and replace retained EU financial services law with new UK domestic rules. In July 2023, the UK government published a draft statutory instrument (SI) to replace the UK’s onshored version of the Securitisation Regulation (UK SR).

Following the publication of the SI, the PRA launched CP15/23 on its proposed firm-facing requirements on 27 July 2023 and the FCA launched its parallel consultation CP23/17 on 7 August 2023. Both of these consultations are explored in further detail in our previous article (available here). While there is some duplication between the two rulebooks, the Regulators noted that they have coordinated their approach with a view to creating a coherent framework.

The Final Rules

In PS24/4, the FCA has sought, among other things, to incorporate the feedback received on its draft rule proposals set out in its final rules, which are called the ‘Securitisation (Smarter Regulatory Framework and Consequential Amendments) Instrument 2024’.

PS24/4 makes the following key amendments to CP23/17:

Timeline for implementation. The Regulators have confirmed the implementation timeline for the requirements (see the Next Steps section below), which allows for a six-month transition period for pre-implementation securitisations.
Due diligence – public vs private securitisations. The FCA has adjusted the wording of its final rules to accommodate both public and private securitisations. Specifically, they refer to information provided ‘before pricing or original commitment to invest’ (in appropriate places) to reflect that private securitisations do not have “pricings” per se. In addition, the FCA has included guidance to reflect the fact that ‘pricing’ in the Simple, Transparent and Standardised (STS) template is to be understood as also including the ‘original commitment to invest’.
Due diligence – disclosures by ‘manufacturers’. The FCA has adjusted the due diligence requirements for secondary market investors in relation to disclosures made by ‘manufacturers’ (i.e., the term used by the FCA as shorthand for originators, original lenders, sponsors and/or securitisation special purpose entities, each as defined in the UK SR) by:
i) introducing a distinction between primary and secondary market investments, so that secondary market investors are not required to conduct due diligence on documents and information that are no longer relevant (e.g., information provided prior to initial pricing such as at issuance, etc.); and
ii) clarifying that investors are required to conduct due diligence on the most up-to-date information available at the time of the investment, as opposed to documents from the timing of ‘pricing’ or ‘commitment’.
Delegation. The FCA has clarified that it is possible for an institutional investor to delegate its due diligence requirements to an entity that is not an institutional investor, subject to the institutional investor retaining the responsibility for compliance with due diligence requirements. In practice, this means that institutional investors will no longer be able to delegate the responsibility for compliance with the due diligence requirements to AIFMs that are not authorised in the UK, as such AIFMs no longer fall within the definition of an ‘institutional investor’ under the SI.
Risk-retention. The FCA has clarified the scope of the prohibition on hedging of the material net interest required to be retained under the risk retention requirements. Specifically, the FCA has confirmed that hedging in these circumstances is permitted for institutional investors so long as it does not compromise the alignment of interest, in line with the EU’s Risk Retention Technical Standards (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2175). In addition, the FCA confirms that there is no need for risk retention in the context of securitisations of own-issued debt instruments, including covered bonds.
Alignment with the PRA. PS24/4 aligns its drafting with that of the PRA rulebook in areas where the rules are similar – both in the language and ordering of the FCA’s rules. The FCA has stated that in a number of cases, however, it has retained the language on which it consulted where, for example, it considered it provided clarity. In non-shared areas, such as STS provisions, the FCA has retained the language and structure of the rules as proposed in CP23/17.

The FCA’s final rules will be included in the FCA’s securitisation sourcebook (known as SECN) alongside the final FCA securitsation reporting templates, which are in the same form as those currently in effect. Similarly, the PRA’s final rules will be implemented into the PRA rulebook by adding a new Securitisation Part, with consequential amendments to the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (CRR) Part and the Non-Performing Exposures Securitisation (CRR) Part.

Next Steps

The implementation date for the FCA and PRA rules is 1 November 2024, subject to revocation of the UK SR and related technical standards.

The commencement order that will bring into force the revocation of the UK SR and related technical standards has not yet been laid before Parliament. HM Treasury anticipates making this commencement order later this year once the SI comes into force. The FCA has stated that it will consider delaying or revoking the rules if the commencement order is not made.

The Regulators plan to consult on further changes to their securitisation rules in Q4 2024/Q1 2025, although timings are potentially subject to change. In this second consultation, the Regulators plan to review the definition of public and private securitisations and the associated reporting regime, among other areas for policy consideration.

EU Divergence

HM Treasury and the Regulators have generally sought to retain the existing onshored Securitisation Regulation and associated technical standards in the FCA and PRA rulebooks, save for some targeted adjustments. These adjustments will lead to some potentially notable divergence between the UK’s new regime and the regime in the EU, including in relation to the following:

Template requirements. While the EU requires institutional investors to ensure disclosure templates are completed regardless of whether the sponsor, originator or SSPE are located in or outside of the EU, UK institutional investors are only required to ensure that certain prescribed information is provided, regardless of the format. Instead, UK sponsors, originators and SSPEs are under a separate obligation to comply with transparency requirements including the use of disclosure templates.
Originator sole purpose test. SECN references certain factors to be taken into account when assessing whether an originator has been established and is operating for the “sole purpose” of securitising exposures. The EU regime has a similar test, but focuses on whether the securitisation and related risk retention assets are the “sole or predominant source of revenue” of the originator. The UK’s regime does not set the same hurdle for meeting the sole purpose test, instead referring more generally to the retainer’s ability to meet its payment obligations.
Change of risk retainer. Under the EU’s rules the holder of a retained interest may not sell, transfer or otherwise surrender its rights in relation to the retained interest, unless due to its insolvency, “legal reasons beyond its control”, or where there is retention on a consolidated basis. The new UK regime does not include “legal reasons beyond its control” as a reason to disapply the sale restriction.

PS24/4, PS7/24, CP23/17, and CP15/23 can be found here, here, here and here, respectively.

Appellate Division Provides Insight Into Rights Inherent to Tidelands Grants and Tidelands Licenses

A new unpublished case decided by the Appellate Division provides insight into how courts view those rights granted to the holder of tidelands grant versus those afforded by a tideland’s license. In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Family Ltd. P’ship Tideland License involved the appeal of the issuance and modification to a tidelands license affecting properties owned by appellant Janine Morris Trust (“JMT”) and respondent P.T. Jibsail Family Limited Partnership (“Jibsail”) situated along Barnegat Bay. JMT argued that the approval of the modified tidelands license to Jibsail – allowing for the construction of a 300-foot-long dog-legged dock protruding into Barnegat Bay – was arbitrary, capricious, and/or unreasonable because the dock hampered JMT’s access to navigable waters.

In analyzing JMT’s argument the Appellate Division reviewed the fundamental differences between tidelands grants and tidelands licenses, including: (1) that a tidelands grant “is [a] conveyance in fee simple of real property,” Panetta v. Equity One, Inc., 190 N.J. 307, 309 (2007), while a tidelands license allows the licensee only “to rent an area of land . . . depicted on the [associated] plan”; and (2) that a tidelands grant generally extends the full width of the ripa or the width of the adjacent upland parcel whereas a tidelands license grants to the licensee the right to use only the area of tidelands circumscribed by a “license box” or an outline that closely approximates the size of the permitted structure and generally only includes water areas, not uplands. Ibid.

The Appellate Division noted that these differences affect the riparian rights associated with each means of conveyance. More specifically, a tidelands grant conveys to the riparian owner the right to the land under the water with that land extending far enough out to allow the riparian owner to access navigable water. Conversely, a tidelands license conveys to the licensee only the right to use the land under the water contained within the limited “license box”. As such, the licensee’s right to use adjacent water is no stronger outside of the “license box” than the riparian right of any other member of the public.

Applying these principles, the Appellate Division found that JMT’s ownership of a tidelands license did not prevent the State from claiming title to and managing the tidelands outside of JMT’s licensed area, nor did the license grant JMT any greater right than that of the general public to the navigable waters ostensibly impacted by Jibsail’s dock. Accordingly, the Appellate Division found the issuance of the tidelands license to Jibsail to be neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

No Arbitration for Lead Buyer: Consent Form Naming Buyer Does Not Give Buyer Right to Enforce Arbitration in Tcpa Class Action

A subsidiary of Move, Inc. bought a data lead from Nations Info, Corp. off of its HudHomesUsa.org website. The subsidiary made an outbound prerecorded call resulting in a TCPA lawsuit against Move. (Fun.)

Move, Inc. moved to compel arbitration arguing that since its subsidiary was named in the consent form–it argued the arbitration clause necessarily covered it because the whole purpose of the clause was to permit parties buying leads from the website to compel TCPA cases to arbitration.

Good argument, but the court disagreed.

In Faucett v. Move, Inc. 2024 WL 2106727 (C.D. Cal. April 22, 2024) the Court refused to enforce the arbitration clause finding that Move, Inc. was not a signatory to the agreement and could not enforce it under any theory.

Most interestingly, Move argued that a motivating purpose behind the publisher’s arbitration clause was to benefit Move because Nations Info listed Opcity —Move’s subsidiary—in the Consent Form as a company that could send marketing messages to Hud’s users. (Mot. 1–2.)

But the Court found the Terms and Consent Form were two different documents, and accepting the one did not change the scope of the other.

The Court also found equitable estoppel did not apply because Plaintiff was not moving to enforce the terms of the agreement. Quite the contrary, Plaintiff denied any arbitration (or consent) agreement existed.

So Move is stuck.

Pretty clear lesson here: lead buyers should make sure the arbitration provisions on any website they are buying leads from includes third-parties (like the buyer) as a party to the clause. Failing to do so may leave the lead buyer stuck without the ability to enforce the provision–and that can lead to a massive class action with potential exposure in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

Lead buyers are already forcing sellers to revise their flows in light of the FCC’s new one to one consent rules. So now would be a GREAT time to revisit requirements around arbitration provisions as well.

Something to think about.

Continuing Forward: Senate Leaders Release an AI Policy Roadmap

The US Senate’s Bipartisan AI Policy Roadmap is a highly anticipated document expected to shape the future of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States over the next decade. This comprehensive guide, which complements the AI research, investigations, and hearings conducted by Senate committees during the 118th Congress, identifies areas of consensus that could help policymakers establish the ground rules for AI use and development across various sectors.

From intellectual property reforms and substantial funding for AI research to sector-specific rules and transparent model testing, the roadmap addresses a wide range of AI-related issues. Despite the long-awaited arrival of the AI roadmap, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate and key architect of the high-level document, is expected to strongly defer to Senate committees to continue drafting individual bills impacting the future of AI policy in the United States.

The Senate’s bipartisan roadmap is the culmination of a series of nine forums held last year by the same group, during which they gathered diverse perspectives and information on AI technology. Topics of the forums included:

Inaugural Forum
Supporting US Innovation in AI
AI and the Workforce
High Impact Uses of AI
Elections and Democracy
Privacy and Liability
Transparency, Explainability, Intellectual Property, and Copyright
Safeguarding
National Security

The wide range of views and concerns expressed by over 150 experts including developers, startups, hardware and software companies, civil rights groups, and academia during these forums helped policymakers develop a thorough and inclusive document that reveals the areas of consensus and disagreement. As the 118th Congress continues, it’s expected that Sen. Schumer will reach out to his counterparts in the US House of Representatives to determine the common areas of interest. Those bipartisan and bicameral conversations will ultimately help Congress establish the foundational rules for AI use and development, potentially shaping not only the future of AI in the United States but also influencing global AI policy.

The final text of this guiding document focuses on several high-level categories. Below, we highlight a handful of notable provisions:

Publicity Rights (Name, Image, and Likeness)

The roadmap encourages senators to consider whether there is a need for legislation that would protect against the unauthorized use of one’s name, image, likeness, and voice, as it relates to AI. While state laws have traditionally recognized the right of individuals to control the commercial use of their so-called “publicity rights,” federal recognition of those rights would mark a major shift in intellectual property law and make it easier for musicians, celebrities, politicians, and other prominent public figures to prevent or discourage the unauthorized use of their publicity rights in the context of AI.

Disclosure and Transparency Requirements

Noting that the “black box” nature of some AI systems can make it difficult to assess compliance with existing consumer protection and civil rights laws, the roadmap encourages lawmakers to ensure that regulators are able to access information directly relevant to enforcing those laws and, if necessary, place appropriate transparency and “explainability” requirements on “high risk” uses of AI. The working group does not offer a definition of “high risk” use cases, but suggests that systems implicating constitutional rights, public safety, or anti-discrimination laws could be forced to disclose information about their training data and factors that influence automated or algorithmic decision making. The roadmap also encourages the development of best practices for when AI users should disclose that their products utilize AI, and whether developers should be required to disclose information to the public about the data sets used to train their AI models.

The document also pushes senators to develop sector-specific rules for AI use in areas such as housing, health care, education, financial services, news and journalism, and content creation.

Increased Funding for AI Innovation

On the heels of the findings included in the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence’s (NSCAI) final report, the roadmap encourages Senate appropriators to provide at least $32 billion for AI research funding at federal agencies, including the US Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This request for a substantial investment underscores the government’s commitment to advancing AI technology and seeks to position federal agencies as “AI ready.” The roadmap’s innovation agenda includes funding the CHIPS and Science Act, support for semiconductor research and development to create high-end microchips, modernizing the federal government’s information technology infrastructure, and developing in-house supercomputing and AI capacity in the US Department of Defense.

Investments in National Defense

Many members of Congress believe that creating a national framework for AI will also help the United States compete on the global stage with China. Senators who see this as the 21st century space race believe investments in the defense and intelligence community’s AI capabilities are necessary to push back against China’s head start in AI development and deployment. The working group’s national security priorities include leveraging AI’s potential to build a digital armed services workforce, enhancing and accelerating the security clearance application process, blocking large language models from leaking intelligence or reconstructing classified information, and pushing back on perceived “censorship, repression, and surveillance” by Russia and China.

Addressing AI in Political Ads

Looking ahead to the 2024 election cycle, the roadmap’s authors are already paying attention to the threats posed by AI-generated election ads. The working group encourages digital content providers to watermark any political ads made with AI and include disclaimers in any AI-generated election content. These guardrails also align with the provisions of several bipartisan election-related AI bills that passed out of the Senate Rules Committee the same day of the roadmap’s release.

Privacy and Legal Liability for AI Usage

The AI Working Group recommends the passage of a federal data privacy law to protect personal information. The AI Working Group notes that the legislation should address issues related to data minimization, data security, consumer data rights, consent and disclosure, and the role of data brokers. Support for these principles is reflected in numerous state privacy laws enacted since 2018, and in bipartisan, bicameral draft legislation (the American Privacy Rights Act) supported by Rep. McMorris Rogers (D-WA), and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

As we await additional legislative activity later this year, it is clear that these guidelines will have far-reaching implications for the AI industry and society at large.

Payday: Terminated Employee Awarded $78,000 in EEOC Settlement

Employees returning to work following a hospitalization or illness can present legally nuanced issues, particularly if an employer is considering terminating an employee in close proximity to such a leave. A recent case settled by a company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) highlights some of the legal risks that can come into play.

According to an EEOC press release: “The EEOC charged in [a lawsuit] that, in February 2022, [a company] fired a long-tenured receptionist, despite having recognized the 78-year-old employee as one of its employees of the year in January 2022. The receptionist’s termination came shortly after a brief hospitalization. The EEOC alleged that upon the receptionist’s return to work, [the company’s] general manager asked her how long she planned to continue to work, whether she needed to work, and whether she would prefer to spend her time traveling and seeing family instead of working.

Although the receptionist expressed her desire to continue working, and despite having never previously raised substantial performance concerns to the receptionist, the general manager told the receptionist that [the company] had lost confidence in her ability to work, citing her recent hospitalization. The receptionist was fired the next day and replaced by substantially younger employees.”

The EEOC alleged that these actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), noting the alleged statements about “losing confidence” in the employee due to a hospitalization could be viewed as disability discrimination (the ADA defines “disability” very broadly), and the fact the employee was over the age of 40 (i.e., in the protected age group) and replaced with a younger employee could give rise to an inference of age discrimination under the ADEA.

The company elected to settle the allegations. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $78,000 to the terminated employee. In addition, it entered into a two-year consent decree that also requires it to “revise its ADEA and ADA policies, post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement, and train all employees and supervisors on their rights and responsibilities under both the ADEA and the ADA. Moreover, the company agreed to provide the EEOC with periodic reports regarding any future complaints of age or disability discrimination including a description of each employee’s allegations and the company’s response.”

Accordingly, this case serves as an important reminder that employee terminations should be carefully evaluated with respect to legal risks under various employment laws. Vetting such risks on the front end may mitigate pain on the back end.

International Groups Call for DOJ Whistleblower Program to Incorporate Best Practices

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is in the midst of developing a whistleblower award program. According to Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri, “the whole point of the DAG’s 90-day ‘policy sprint’ is to gather information, consult with stakeholders, and design a thoughtful, well-informed program.”

Since the Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the policy sprint on March 7, whistleblower advocates in the U.S., including Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, have consulted with the DOJ, outlining key elements of other successful whistleblower programs which should be incorporated in the DOJ program.

On May 13, a coalition of anti-corruption organizations and law firms from over twenty countries sent a letter to the DOJ emphasizing that an effective DOJ whistleblower program could greatly aid international anti-corruption efforts.

“We, the undersigned organizations, believe that a U.S. Department of Justice whistleblower rewards program has the potential to be instrumental to each of our anti-corruption efforts,” write the organizations.

“However, without careful consideration for the unique risks of international whistleblowers and without the implementation of the best-practice protocols identified above, this program could be damaging for international whistleblowers, and their catalytic role in transnational anti-corruption efforts,” the letter continues.

In the letter, the organizations call on the DOJ to incorporate four proven best practices for whistleblower award programs. These best practices mirror those previously called for by Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. Allison Herren Lee, former SEC Commissioner and currently Of Counsel at Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, outlined these four elements in a recent article for the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.

The four recommendations are:

1. Mandatory Awards of 10-30% of Proceeds Collected

2. Anonymous and Confidential Reporting Channels

3. Dedicated Whistleblower Office

4. Eligibility Requirements which Match the SEC Whistleblower Program

Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

CEQ Finalizes “Phase 2” Revisions to NEPA Implementing Regulations

The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) is tasked with issuing National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) regulations to guide federal agencies in its implementation. In 2021, CEQ began a two-phase process to revise these regulations. “Phase 1” largely reversed several changes made to the regulations in 2020 under the prior Trump Administration, including key changes relating to defining “purpose and need” and the long-used concepts of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The new “Phase 2” revisions are more extensive. Some of the Phase 2 revisions codify in regulation amendments to NEPA made by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (“FRA”) and intended to improve the efficiency of the NEPA process, such as establishing page limits for environmental documents and facilitating the use of categorical exclusions (“CEs”). The Phase 2 revisions also restore additional concepts or provisions from the 1978 regulations and case law interpreting those regulations, remove additional changes made in 2020 that CEQ now “considers imprudent,” and, for the first time, specifically require consideration of effects relevant to environmental justice and climate change. We highlight some of these changes below.

The Phase 2 Final Rule will impact a broad range of projects needing federal authorizations or funding. Many of the efficiency measures included in the Final Rule implement changes that were enacted in the FRA. Although these changes could help address some long-standing issues in the NEPA process around delays and litigation, the effect of the proposed changes will be highly dependent on how the individual federal agencies carry out the changes through their own procedures and implementing regulations. Moreover, the Phase 2 Final Rule makes other important changes to the regulations that, rather than streamlining and improving efficiency, could increase burdens and challenges associated with NEPA compliance.

The Phase 2 Final Rule is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2024. However, industry groups and others already have signaled their frustration with these revisions, including several key members of Congress, led by Senator Joe Manchin, who have announced that they will seek to overturn the Phase 2 Final Rule using the Congressional Review Act.

Provisions Directed Towards Promoting Efficiency and Streamlining

Page Limits and Timelines. The Final Rule makes many small and some larger changes to promote efficiency and streamline the NEPA process. The Final Rule incorporates the FRA’s page limits of 75 pages for environmental assessments (“EAs”), 150 pages for environmental impact statements (“EISs”), and 300 pages for EISs of “extraordinary complexity.” It includes the FRA’s time limits for completion of NEPA documents, requiring completion of EAs within one year and EISs within two years, although it allows for an agency to extend this deadline, in consultation with any project applicant, to the extent necessary to complete the document. To further promote efficiency, the Final Rule also requires agencies to set deadlines and schedules appropriate to specific actions or types of actions.

Categorical Exclusions. The Final Rule also makes substantial changes to its regulations governing CEs that should facilitate agencies’ adoption of CEs as a tool to streamline NEPA compliance in certain circumstances, as allowed under the FRA. It sets forth a process for agencies to adopt and utilize other agencies’ CEs, as allowed under the FRA without having to amend their regulations. The Final Rule clarifies that agencies can establish CEs individually as well as jointly with other agencies. And it allows agencies to establish CEs through land use plans, decision documents supported by a programmatic EIS or EA, or similar planning or programmatic decisions, without having to go through a separate rulemaking process. According to CEQ, by expanding the means by which agencies can establish CEs, these changes will, among other things, encourage agencies to undertake programmatic and planning reviews, as well as promote and speed the process for establishing CEs.

Programmatic Reviews and Tiering. The Final Rule includes various revisions to codify best practices for the use of programmatic NEPA reviews and tiering, which CEQ acknowledges “are important tools to facilitate more efficient environmental reviews and project approvals.”

Provisions that Could Increase NEPA Compliance Burdens

While the Phase 2 Final Rule emphasizes efficiency, it includes a range of regulatory changes that could have the opposite effect, creating additional burdens and potentially perpetuating opportunities for contentious litigation.

Climate Change, Environmental Justice, and Tribal Resources. Reflected in a wide range of revisions to the regulations, the Phase 2 Final Rule aims to further advance the Biden Administration’s policy focus on climate change, environmental justice, and Tribal resources. Among other provisions, the Final Rule explicitly requires agencies to analyze “disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns” and climate change-related effects, including quantification of greenhouse gas emissions where feasible, in their NEPA reviews. Agencies also must review these effects, as well as effects on Tribal rights and resources, in identifying the environmentally preferable alternative or alternatives. Similarly, the Final Rule defines “extraordinary circumstances”—which agencies must consider in determining whether to apply a CE—to include potential substantial disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns, potential substantial climate change effects, and potential substantial effects on historic or cultural properties. Moreover, agencies now “should, where relevant and appropriate, incorporate mitigation measures” to address effects “that disproportionately and adversely affect communities with environmental justice concerns.” And the Final Rule directs agencies, where appropriate, to use projections when evaluating climate change-related effects, including relying on models to project a range of possible future outcomes, provided that they disclose relevant assumptions or limitations. While these codifications are new—particularly the regulation directing agencies to consider mitigation for impacts to environmental justice communities—most agencies have been including some environmental justice and greenhouse gas emission impacts in their NEPA reviews based upon federal governmentwide and agency policy and court precedent.

Major Federal Actions. Implementing changes in the FRA and further responding to changes made in the 2020 rule, the Final Rule revises the definition of “major federal action”—the trigger for environmental review under NEPA. The FRA, in addition to specifying that a major federal action requires “substantial Federal control and responsibility,” established several exclusions including for certain types of projects receiving loans, loan guarantees, or other types of federal financial assistance. In an effort to address some of the uncertainty raised by these exclusions, the revised regulations provide that major federal actions generally include “[p]roviding more than a minimal amount of financial assistance, . . . where the agency has the authority to deny in whole or in part the assistance due to environmental effects, has authority to impose conditions on the receipt of the financial assistance to address environmental effects, or otherwise has sufficient control and responsibility over the subsequent use of the financial assistance” or effects of the funded activity.

Alternatives. The Phase 2 Final Rule clarifies that agencies are not required to consider “every conceivable alternative to a proposed action” but rather only “a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decision making.” Additionally, the revised regulations provide that agencies have the discretion, but are not required, to include reasonable alternatives not within the lead agency’s jurisdiction. CEQ continues to anticipate that this will occur relatively infrequently and notes that such alternatives still must be technically and economically feasible and meet the proposed action’s purpose and need. The Final Rule also requires that environmental documents (and not just records of decision) identify one or more environmentally preferable alternatives, which could be the proposed action, the no action alternative, or a reasonable alternative.

Mitigation. Although NEPA has long been understood to be a procedural, rather than substantive, requirement, the Phase 2 Final Rule includes several provisions intended to encourage agencies to mitigate the impacts of proposed actions and to ensure that mitigation measures that agencies rely on in making their environmental determinations are actually carried out. When an agency incorporates and relies upon mitigation measures—whether in its analysis of reasonably foreseeable effects or in a mitigated finding of no significant impact—the revised regulations require the agency to explain the enforceable mitigation requirements or commitments to be undertaken and the authority to enforce them (for example, permit conditions, agreements, or other measures), and to prepare a monitoring and compliance plan.

Development of New Information. While agencies generally historically have not been required to develop data that was not readily available, CEQ “now considers it vital to the NEPA process for agencies to undertake studies and analyses” that provide information “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives,” provided the overall costs are not unreasonable, and includes provisions to that effect in the Final Rule.

Exhaustion, Judicial Review, and Remedies. The Phase 2 Final Rule removes several changes included in the 2020 rule relating to exhaustion, judicial review, and remedies that were intended to reduce NEPA-related litigation and project delays.

The Phase 2 revisions take effect on July 1, 2024, and apply to any NEPA process that commences after that date, although the Final Rule states that agencies may apply them to ongoing activities and environmental documents that commence prior to that date. In addition to following the CEQ regulations, agencies also have adopted agency-specific NEPA implementing procedures. Agencies must revise these procedures to incorporate changes necessitated by the Phase 2 Final Rule by July 1, 2025.

The New Retirement Security Rule: Updated Fiduciary Definition Under ERISA

On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) promulgated a final rule, titled the “Retirement Security Rule” (the “Final Rule”), updating the definition of an “investment advice fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). In addition, the DOL issued final amendments to several prohibited transaction class exemptions (“PTEs”) available to investment advice fiduciaries, which together with the Final Rule seek to effectuate the DOL’s goal of requiring honest investment advice from investment advice fiduciaries to retirement investors. The updated fiduciary definition under the Final Rule and the amended PTEs will become effective on September 23, 2024, with a one-year phase-in period for certain conditions of the amended PTEs.

Fiduciary Definition

The framework for determining whether a person is an investment advice fiduciary has historically required that investment advice be provided to a retirement investor on a regular basis and pursuant to a mutual agreement, arrangement, or understanding that such advice will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions.

Under the Final Rule, a person will be an investment advice fiduciary for purposes of ERISA if (1) they make a recommendation of any securities transaction or other investment transaction or any investment strategy to a retirement investor for a fee or other compensation (direct or indirect), and (2) such recommendation arises in either one of the following contexts:

The person either directly or indirectly (e.g., through or together with any affiliate) makes professional investment recommendations to investors on a regular basis as part of their business, and the recommendation is made under circumstances that would indicate to a reasonable investor in like circumstances that the recommendation:
- is based on review of the retirement investor’s particular needs or individual circumstances,
- reflects the application of professional or expert judgment to the retirement investor’s particular needs or individual circumstances, and
- may be relied on by the retirement investor as intended to advance the retirement investor’s best interest; or
the person represents or acknowledges that they are acting as a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to the recommendation.

For purposes of the Final Rule, a “retirement investor” is defined as a plan, plan fiduciary, plan participant or beneficiary, IRA, IRA owner or beneficiary, or IRA fiduciary. “Recommendations” means recommendations as to:

the advisability of acquiring, holding, disposing of, or exchanging securities or other investment property, investment strategy, or how securities or other investment property should be invested following a rollover, transfer, or distribution from a plan or IRA;
the management of securities or other investment property, including, among other things, recommendations on investment policies or strategies, portfolio composition, selection of other persons to provide investment advice or investment management services, selection of investment account arrangements, or voting of proxies appurtenant to securities; or
rollovers, transfers, or distributions of assets from a plan or IRA, including recommendations as to whether to engage in the transaction, the amount, the form and the destination of such a rollover, transfer or distribution.

Significant Changes

The investment advice fiduciary standard in the Final Rule has become narrower than initially anticipated:

The DOL clarified that with respect to a person who becomes an investment advice fiduciary due to their representing or acknowledging that they are acting as a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to a recommendation, fiduciary status would apply only with respect to that recommendation and not with respect to every future interaction with the same retirement investor regardless of the circumstances.
The Final Rule includes a paragraph specifically confirming that sales pitches and investment education can be provided without triggering ERISA fiduciary status. A key component of this consideration is whether a sales pitch is individualized to a retirement investor’s particular needs and circumstances.

Amendment to Exemption for Transactions Involving Investment Advice (PTE 2020-02)

PTE 2020-02 generally permits parties providing fiduciary investment advice to retirement investors to receive reasonable compensation in exchange for their services, which would otherwise be prohibited in the absence of an exemption. The final amendment to PTE 2020-02 broadens the exemption to cover additional transactions and revises certain conditions, including conditions relating to disclosure, recordkeeping, and ineligibility.

The amended PTE 2020-02 applies to covered transactions on or after September 23, 2024; however, there is a one-year phase-in period beginning on September 23, 2024. During this phase-in period, investment professionals may receive reasonable compensation if they comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards and the fiduciary acknowledgement requirement.

Required Disclosure and Fiduciary Acknowledgement

The amended PTE 2020-02 requires investment advisers to provide a written acknowledgement that the institution and the investment professional are providing fiduciary advice and are fiduciaries under ERISA. Furthermore, the amended PTE 2020-02 requires investment advisers to make certain additional disclosures regarding fees, scope of services, and conflicts of interest.

Impartial Conduct Standard

The amended PTE 2020-02 replaces the “best interest standard” for determining impartial conduct with the “Care Obligation” and the “Loyalty Obligation,” which, according to the DOL, are more consistent with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Best Interest. Under the Care Obligation, advice must reflect the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims, based on the investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, and needs of the retirement investor. Under the Loyalty Obligation, the investment professional must not place the financial or other interests of the professional, their affiliate or related entity, or other party ahead of the interests of the retirement investor or subordinate the retirement investor’s interests to those of the professional, their affiliate, or related entity.

Policies and Procedures

Each investment adviser must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures prudently designed to ensure that the investment adviser and its investment professionals comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards and other exemption conditions. The policies must mitigate conflict of interests.

Specifically, investment advisers may not use quotas, appraisals, bonuses, special awards, differential compensation, or other similar actions in a manner that is intended, or that a reasonable person would conclude are likely, to result in recommendations that do not meet the Care Obligation or Loyalty Obligation. The investment adviser must provide their complete policies and procedures to the DOL within 30 days of a request.

Additionally, the investment adviser must continue to conduct a retrospective review at least annually that is reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of and achieve compliance with the conditions of this exemption. The investment adviser must maintain records demonstrating compliance with PTE 2020-02 for a period of six years after the covered transaction.

Penalties

The amended PTE 2020-02 broadens the disqualification provisions to include convictions of certain affiliated entities and foreign convictions. Previously, an investment adviser or an investment professional was ineligible only upon a conviction for “crimes arising out of such person’s provision of investment advice” to retirement investors. Under the amended PTE 2020-02, however, a relevant conviction or final judgment that occurs on or after September 23, 2024, with respect to an entity in the same controlled group as an investment adviser would result in such investment adviser’s becoming ineligible to rely on PTE 2020-02 for a 10-year period.

The DOL’s Retirement Security Rule has broad implications for financial institutions, including investment advisers.

Poor Oversight: Healthcare Company & Owner to Pay $1 Million for Care Plan Oversight Service Billing Fraud

The United States announced that Chicago-based healthcare company Apollo Health Inc. (Apollo), and its owner, Brian J. Weinstein, will pay $1 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations. The claims state that Apollo, under the direction of Weinstein, submitted bills to Medicare for services that were never performed. The case was brought by two whistleblowers who will be rewarded for their efforts.

From December 2014 through March 2017, Apollo allegedly submitted Medicare claims for care plan oversight services (CPO) that did not occur. CPOs detail a physician’s duties to supervise a patient receiving complex medical care. Weinstein allegedly directed Apollo to submit 12,592 CPO service claims for over two dozen providers employed by Apollo, despite Weinstein’s knowledge that no services had been rendered to Medicare patients, and no CPO services were documented in medical records.
Medicare fraud undermines the trust and integrity of the healthcare system, resulting in significant financial burdens on taxpayers. When individuals or organizations engage in fraudulent activities, such as billing for services not rendered or submitting false claims, they siphon funds from Medicare’s intended beneficiaries. Medicare fraud diminishes the resources available for legitimate healthcare services for truly ill Medicare beneficiaries.
The settlement resolves claims brought by two whistleblowers, also known as relators, under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. Javar Jones and Louis Curet, the relators in the case, will receive 20% of the settlement amount for bringing the fraudulent activity to the United States’ attention. Whistleblowers who report fraud against the government via a qui tam lawsuit can earn a 15-25% share of the government’s recovery.

The National Law Forum

House and Senate Hold Hearings on EPA’s FY 2025 Budget Request

Like this:

UK Regulators Publish Final Securitisation Rules

Like this:

Appellate Division Provides Insight Into Rights Inherent to Tidelands Grants and Tidelands Licenses

Like this:

No Arbitration for Lead Buyer: Consent Form Naming Buyer Does Not Give Buyer Right to Enforce Arbitration in Tcpa Class Action

Like this:

Continuing Forward: Senate Leaders Release an AI Policy Roadmap