The National Law Forum

Recent Federal Developments, July 2024

TSCA/FIFRA/TRI

EPA’s Proposed NMP Risk Management Rule Includes Requirements To Protect Workers And Consumers: On June 15, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would protect workers and consumers from exposure to N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). 89 Fed. Reg. 51134. To address the identified unreasonable risk, EPA proposes to: prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of NMP in several occupational conditions of use (COU); require worker protections through an NMP workplace chemical protection program (WCPP) or prescriptive controls (including concentration limits) for most of the occupational COUs; require concentration limits on a consumer product; regulate certain consumer products to prevent commercial use; and establish recordkeeping, labeling, and downstream notification requirements. Comments are due July 29, 2024. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of the comments on or before July 15, 2024. According to EPA’s June 5, 2024, press release, NMP is used to manufacture and produce many electronics, polymers, agricultural chemicals, and petrochemical products. EPA states that NMP is used in the production of specialized electronics, such as semiconductors and magnet wire, as well as lithium-ion batteries used in a wide variety of applications, including aerospace vehicles and electronic devices. EPA notes that NMP “also has numerous other industrial, commercial and consumer applications, including adhesives and sealants, paints and coatings, paint removers, lubricants, automotive care products, degreasers, cleaning and furniture care products.” For more information, please read the full memorandum.

EPA Announces Final Cancellation Order And Updates To Existing Stocks Provisions For Several Chlorpyrifos Products: On June 25, 2024, EPA announced the issuance of a final cancellation order for Corteva’s chlorpyrifos product “Dursban 50W in Water Soluble Packets” and three Gharda chlorpyrifos products, and an amendment to the existing stocks provisions for two Liberty and three Winfield chlorpyrifos end-use products. EPA also states that it has updated its frequently asked questions about chlorpyrifos. More information is available in our July 2, 2024, blog.

EPA Announces New Initiatives To Improve Efficiency, Worker Protections, And Transparency In New Chemical Reviews: During the June 26, 2024, “TSCA Reform — Eight Years Later” conference, presented by Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C^®), the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Michal Ilana Freedhoff, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA, provided the keynote address. During her remarks, Freedhoff announced four new initiatives in EPA’s review of new chemicals under TSCA. As later announced by EPA, these initiatives are:

Engineering checklist: In May 2024, EPA began implementing an internal engineering checklist to review systematically new chemical submissions and identify potential data gaps at the beginning of the review process.
Worker protections: According to EPA, most TSCA Section 5(e) orders are consent orders negotiated between EPA and the notice submitter that use standard “boilerplate” text. In June 2024, EPA updated the boilerplate language to strengthen worker protections and provide further clarity to the text.
Updated statistics for new chemical review timelines: On June 26, 2024, EPA began including completed “rework” risk assessments when reporting monthly statistics on new chemical reviews. EPA has updated its Statistics for the New Chemicals Program under TSCA web page to include a category listing all completed rework risk assessments since the beginning of 2024.
Reference Library: On June 26, 2024, EPA launched the New Chemicals Division Reference Library, an index of EPA documents related to the work of the New Chemicals Division. It currently contains over 90 entries, and EPA will update it as it develops new materials.

More information is available in our June 26, 2024, blog item. A summary of the conference is available in our July 9, 2024, memorandum.

EPA Postpones Proposed Expansion Of The Safer Choice And DfE Programs: As reported in our July 27, 2023, memorandum, in July 2023, EPA proposed an expansion of the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) programs to include certification of additional product categories. According to EPA’s website, “EPA thanks the many commenters for their input. EPA reviewed the comments and understands several categories are of interest to stakeholders and Safer Choice partners. With the 2024 decrease in EPA’s funding, however, EPA is not able to pursue expansion at this time. EPA plans to reconsider the expansion in the future as resources allow.” On June 28, 2024, a summary of comments received on EPA’s proposed expansion was posted in the online docket. More information is available in our July 5, 2024, blog item.

EPA Releases Draft Risk Evaluation For 1,1-Dichloroethane And Draft Hazard Assessment Of 1,2-Dichloroethane For Public Comment And Peer Review: On July 1, 2024, EPA announced the release of the draft risk evaluation for 1,1-dichloroethane and the draft human health hazard assessment supporting the draft risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloroethane (also known as ethylene dichloride) prepared under TSCA. EPA states that it “preliminarily determined 1,1-dichloroethane poses unreasonable risk to human health (of workers) and the environment.” According to EPA, the effects to people from exposure to 1,1-dichloroethane and 1,2-dichlorethane are “kidney and other cancers, as well as harmful non-cancer renal, nasal, immune system, and reproductive effects.” Publication of a notice of availability in the Federal Register will begin a 60-day comment period. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

Court Vacates TSCA Section 4 Test Order, Grant’s Vinyl Institute’s Petition For Review: On July 5, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in Vinyl Institute, Inc. v. EPA (No. 22-1089). As reported in our May 31, 2022, blog item, on May 23, 2022, the Vinyl Institute, Inc. (VI) filed suit against EPA, seeking review of EPA’s March 2022 test order for 1,1,2-trichloroethane issued under TSCA Section 4(a)(2). The court states that “EPA’s non-public part of the administrative record is not part of ‘the record taken as a whole’ subject to our heightened substantial evidence review of TSCA test orders.” According to the court, to the extent EPA relies on non-public portions of the administrative record, it “has failed to provide substantial evidence that meets its statutory mandate.” The court vacated the test order, remanding to EPA to satisfy that mandate with “substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole.” The court also denied VI’s motion to supplement the record “with scientific information it could have — and should have — submitted earlier.” More information is available in our July 10, 2024, blog item.

EPA Publishes Compliance Guide For Final Methylene Chloride Risk Management Rule: On July 10, 2024, EPA published a compliance guide for its final methylene chloride risk management rule issued under TSCA. According to EPA, the compliance guide will help industry, workers, and other interested stakeholders understand and comply with the new regulations to prevent injuries, long-term illnesses, and deaths. EPA also announced that in June 2024, it released a fact sheet on the rule containing information on who is subject to the rule along with a summary of compliance timelines. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

EPA Grants TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeking Section 6 Rule Prohibiting Three PFAS Found In Fluorinated Plastic Containers: EPA announced on July 11, 2024, that it granted a petition filed a petition under TSCA Section 21 requesting that EPA establish regulations under TSCA Section 6 prohibiting the manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) formed during the fluorination of plastic containers. EPA “will promptly commence an appropriate proceeding under TSCA Section 6.” According to EPA’s announcement, EPA intends to request information, including the number, location, and uses of fluorinated containers in the United States; alternatives to the fluorination process that generates perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA); and measures to address risk from PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA formed during the fluorination of plastic containers. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

EPA’s Spring 2024 Unified Agenda Includes Proposed And Final TSCA, TRI, And PFAS Rules: EPA’s Spring 2024 Unified Agenda, published on July 5, 2024, includes a number of proposed and final TSCA, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and PFAS rulemakings. More information on the rulemakings, including links to our memoranda, will be available in an upcoming blog item.

RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA/SDWA

EPA Publishes 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan: EPA announced on June 20, 2024, the release of its 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan, which describes Agency actions to address the impacts of climate change and help build a more climate-resilient nation. Highlights include:

Fostering a climate-ready workforce;
Building facility resilience;
Developing climate-resilient supply chains;
Integrating climate resilience into external funding opportunities;
Applying climate data and tools to decision making; and
Integrating climate adaptation into rulemaking processes.

EPA Amends Standards And Practices For All Appropriate Inquiries: EPA issued a final rule on June 24, 2024, amending the “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries” to reference a standard practice recently made available by ASTM International, “a widely recognized standards development organization.” 89 Fed. Reg. 52386. EPA states that it is amending the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference ASTM International’s E2247-23 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” and allow for its use to satisfy the requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, after one year, EPA will remove recognition of the previous version of that standard, ASTM E2247-16, as compliant with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule. The final rule will be effective August 23, 2024.

EPA Proposes To Remove Affirmative Defense Provisions From Specified NSPS And NESHAP: On June 24, 2024, EPA proposed amendments to several New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 89 Fed. Reg. 52425. Specifically, EPA proposes to remove the affirmative defense provisions associated with violation of emission standards due to malfunctions. According to EPA, it proposes to remove these provisions because they are inconsistent with a D.C. Circuit Court decision that vacated affirmative defense provisions in one of EPA’s CAA regulations, and because EPA finds that the reasoning in the decision applies equally to other CAA rules. Since the court decision, EPA has been removing affirmative defense provisions from CAA rules when they were otherwise revised or amended. EPA states that this action “proposes to remove the remaining affirmative defense provisions more efficiently.” Comments are due August 8, 2024.

PHMSA Amends HMR To Require Real-Time Train Consistent Information In Electronic Form: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a final rule on June 24, 2024, amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to require railroads that carry hazardous materials to generate in electronic form, maintain, and provide to first responders, emergency response officials, and law enforcement personnel certain information regarding hazardous materials in rail transportation to enhance emergency response and investigative efforts. 89 Fed. Reg. 52956. According to PHMSA, the amendments address a safety recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board and statutory mandates in The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, as amended by the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, and complement existing regulatory requirements pertaining to the generation, maintenance, and provision of similar information in hard copy form, as well as other hazard communication requirements. The effective date of the final rule is July 24, 2024. The voluntary compliance date was June 24, 2024. The delayed compliance date for Class I Railroads is June 24, 2025, and for Class II and III Railroads is June 24, 2026.

EPA Proposes To Extend Compliance Date For Installation Of Certain Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems: On June 26, 2024, EPA proposed to amend a provision of the Technology Transitions regulations promulgated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act. 89 Fed. Reg. 53373. The proposed amendment would allow one additional year, until January 1, 2027, solely for the installation of new residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump variable refrigerant flow systems that are 65,000 British thermal units per hour or greater using components manufactured in the United States or imported prior to January 1, 2026. According to EPA, the existing January 1, 2026, compliance date for the installation of certain variable refrigerant flow systems “may result in significant stranded inventory that was intended for new construction. EPA is promulgating this action to mitigate the potential for significant stranded inventory in this subsector.” Comments are due July 26, 2024.

PHMSA Requests Feedback On De Minimis Quantities Of Explosives: PHMSA published a request for information (RFI) on June 28, 2024, to solicit information from hazardous materials (HAZMAT) shippers pertaining to what small quantities or low concentrations of explosives they offer for transport appear to present a low risk to life, property, and the environment. 89 Fed. Reg. 54157. PHMSA seeks to determine what small quantities or low concentrations of explosives HAZMAT shippers offer for transport that appear to present a low risk (e.g., negligible severity, remote probability) to life, property, and the environment. PHMSA will use the information to define the focus of a research project investigating the risk of small and/or de minimis quantities of explosive substances and in selecting test samples for PHMSA research and development Contract# 693JK322C00003. Comments are due September 26, 2024. PHMSA states that it will consider comments received after that date to the extent possible.

EPA Determines Current NESHAP For PQBS Source Category Provides “Ample Margin Of Safety”: On July 5, 2024, EPA published a final rule regarding the residual risk and technology review conducted for the NESHAP for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) source category and the periodic technology review for the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) source category NESHAP. 89 Fed. Reg. 55684. EPA states that it is issuing a final determination that risks due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the PQBS source category are acceptable and that “the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.” The final rule was effective July 5, 2024, except for amendatory instruction 3, which was effective July 15, 2024. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register beginning July 5, 2024. The IBR of certain other material listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2005.

EPA Releases Science-Based Recommendations To Help Reduce Exposure To Contaminants, Including PFAS, In Fish: EPA announced on July 11, 2024, that it issued updated recommendations under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for contaminants that states, Tribes, and territories should consider monitoring in locally caught, freshwater fish. According to EPA, for the first time, it has added several PFAS to the contaminant list alongside lead, three cyanotoxins, a flame retardant, and amphetamine. With this announcement, EPA suggests that states, Tribes, and territories monitor for these contaminants. EPA notes that this update comes after reviewing scientific literature, analyzing data, and seeking external peer review of the Agency’s analysis, and it will help ensure that state and Tribal fish advisories consider the latest science.

FDA

FDA Updates Resources For FSMA Rule: On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released additional resources to help industry comply with the Food Traceability Rule, a component of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Resources include a template spreadsheet to help fulfill data submission requests and minor revisions to the Food Traceability List. Additional information is available at the link here.

FDA Releases Update For Priority Guidance Topic List: On June 28, 2024, FDA provided an update for its priority guidance topic list, which was released in January. Since January, FDA has issued the following guidance documents:

FDA notes that its “intent is to publish all draft and final guidance topics on the list” but that “modifications in plans may be needed to support emerging issues and Administration priorities.”

FDA Revokes Authorization For Brominated Vegetable Oil: On July 3, 2024, FDA amended its regulations to revoke the authorization for the use of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in food. 89 Fed. Reg. 55040. The final rule revokes the authorization for the use of BVO as a food ingredient intended to stabilize flavoring oils in fruit-flavored beverages. FDA notes that there are no other FDA authorized uses. The rule is effective on August 2, 2024.

NANOTECHNOLOGY

ECHA Evaluating Function Of EUON; Survey Closed July 3, 2024: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is evaluating the function of the European Union (EU) Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON). As part of its evaluation, ECHA conducted a survey to collect responses from EUON website visitors and stakeholders. The survey closed July 3, 2024. More information is available in our June 24, 2024, blog item.

ECHA Updates Report On Key Areas Of Regulatory Challenge, Addresses Micro- And Nano-Sized Materials: On June 12, 2024, ECHA announced that it updated its report on key areas of regulatory challenge, providing more detailed information on areas where scientific research is needed to protect human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals. The report addresses micro- and nano-size materials. More information is available in our June 17, 2024, blog item.

NIOSH Highlights NTRC’s Work On Engineering Controls And PPE: On July 1, 2024, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) posted a NIOSH Science Blog item entitled “Celebrating 20 Years of the Nanotechnology Research Center: Highlights from Engineering Controls and Personal Protective Equipment,” part of a series commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC). NIOSH researchers plan to develop a new reliable aerosol testing method that can accurately evaluate the respirator penetration against workplace nanomaterials; evaluate the effectiveness of NIOSH-approved^® respirators to determine whether existing respirator guidelines apply to workers exposed to nanomaterials; and compare nanomaterial penetrations determined by direct-reading and elemental carbon analysis methods. More information is available in our July 5, 2024, blog item.

NNI And NNCO Will Hold July 24 Workshop On “Responsible Development, Social Science, And The National Nanotechnology Initiative”: The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) are convening a July 24, 2024, workshop, “Responsible Development, Social Science, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative: A Workshop to Explore Past and Future Intersections.” The agenda includes a presentation about the recently released “Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking,” introductions to key nanotechnology case studies by federal experts, and flash talks by social scientists. More information is available in our July 3, 2024, blog item.

BIOBASED/RENEWABLE PRODUCTS/SUSTAINABILITY

B&C^® Biobased And Sustainable Chemicals Blog: For access to a summary of key legislative, regulatory, and business developments in biobased chemicals, biofuels, and industrial biotechnology, go to https://www.lawbc.com/brand/bioblog/.

LEGISLATIVE

House Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2025 Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act: The House Appropriations Committee announced on July 9, 2024, that it approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act by a vote of 29 to 25. According to the press release, the bill:

Ensures chemical and pesticide manufacturers are not overburdened with requirements that would drive business overseas and threaten American competitiveness;
Blocks EPA’s car regulations on light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles;
Prohibits EPA from allowing California to require that new small off-road engines, such as lawn care equipment, be zero-emission;
Prohibits funds for EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 and regulatory overreach regarding ozone emissions and steam electric power plants;
Reduces funding for EPA by 20 percent;
Reduces funding for the Council on Environmental Quality to the authorized level of $1 million;
Rejects eight of the Administration’s climate change executive orders; and
Prohibits agencies from using the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in cost-benefit analyses and blocks the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

House Committee Holds EPA Oversight Hearing On July 10, 2024: The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability held a full committee hearing on July 10, 2024, on “Oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” The Committee’s July 3, 2024, press release quotes Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) as stating: “We know the Biden Administration is overreaching its environmental protection authorities extensively, flouting the limits the Supreme Court set upon them two years ago in West Virginia v. EPA and adopting statutory interpretations that surely will not pass muster under the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Committee looks forward to holding the agency accountable next week for its efforts to cement Green New Deal and other misguided priorities that have hurt both American businesses and consumers across the country.” More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

MISCELLANEOUS

California Court Grants Injunction To Stop Prop 65 Warnings For Titanium Dioxide In Cosmetic And Personal Care Products: On June 12, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (District Court) issued an Order granting a preliminary injunction brought by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), which alleged that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) requirement for warnings under Proposition 65 (Prop 65) related to titanium dioxide in cosmetics and personal care products violated the First Amendment. The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:23-cv-01006-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal. 2024). In its Order, the District Court enjoined the California Attorney General and any private citizen enforcers from enforcing Prop 65’s warning requirement for “cancer as applied to Listed Titanium Dioxide (i.e., titanium dioxide that consists of airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) in cosmetic and personal care products.” The District Court also denied a motion to intervene by Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (EHA), who had argued it was “an interested party because it is the primary enforcer of Prop 65.” For more information, please read the full memorandum.

Proposition 65: OEHHA Proposes Additional Changes To “Short-Form” Warning Option: On June 14, 2024, the California OEHHA issued a notice proposing additional changes to its Prop 65 Article 6 “clear and reasonable warnings” regulations for “short-form” warnings (Notice). The changes proposed now are to the proposed regulations that OEHHA issued on October 27, 2023. The history of these amendments, dating back to January 2021, are set forth in our memorandum available here. Written comments on the proposed changes were due no later than June 28, 2024. More information is available in our July 5, 2024, memorandum.

June 2024 IRIS Program Outlook Released: EPA’s Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) Program announced on June 27, 2024, the release of the June 2024 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program Outlook. To maintain transparency, the IRIS Program provides an updated outlook of program activities. The IRIS Program Outlook describes assessments that are in development and projected public milestone dates.

Registration Opens For July Webinars On Minnesota’s PFAS In Products Law; MPCA Publishes Summary Of Comments On CUUs: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will hold two public webinars in July to provide updates and answer questions on Minnesota’s PFAS in products law (Amara’s Law), which takes effect in stages between 2025 and 2032:

Progress on rule development, July 18, 2024, 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (CDT): Join MPCA staff for a presentation on preliminary rule writing for the PFAS in products reporting, fees, and currently unavoidable use (CUU) rules. Registration is open.
Information on 2025 prohibitions for retailers and manufacturers, July 25, 2024, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (CDT): This webinar will discuss how the 2025 PFAS in products prohibitions will affect retailers and manufacturers starting January 1, 2025, when 11 categories of consumer products must be free of intentionally added PFAS. Registration is open.

As reported in our January 12, 2024, blog item, MPCA published a request for comments (RFC) on planned new rules governing CUU determinations for products containing PFAS. According to the RFC, the main purpose of the rulemaking is to establish criteria and processes through which MPCA will make decisions on what uses of intentionally added PFAS will qualify as CUUs in products sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota. Any such determinations must be published by rule by MPCA by January 1, 2032. MPCA has posted a summary of the comments received on the RFC. More information is available in our June 24, 2024, blog item.

Minnesota Department Of Health Highlights Recent Publications On PFAS Bioaccumulation And PFAS In Infant Formula: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recently noted that Health Risk Assessment scientists at MDH have published two articles in the Journal of Environmental Exposure Assessment related to PFAS:

OIRA Will Offer Training Sessions On Effective Participation In The Public Comment Process: As part of its efforts to strengthen public engagement in the federal regulatory process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB announced on July 10, 2024, that it will offer training sessions on effective public participation in the public comment process. 89 Fed. Reg. 56777. In response to feedback received from the public and as part of its ongoing efforts to strengthen public participation in the regulatory process, OIRA will hold two training sessions on effective participation in the public comment process. During the training sessions, OIRA will describe opportunities to provide comment in the federal regulatory process; how to submit public comments; and how to draft effective public comments. The training sessions will be held on July 18, 2024, from 3:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. (EDT) and July 24, 2024, from 5:30 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. (EDT).

CISA Hosts 2024 Chemical Security Seminars On July 11 And 18, 2024: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is hosting the fully virtual 2024 Chemical Security Seminars on July 11 and July 18, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (EDT). The sessions will cover a range of topics related to the security of dangerous chemicals. More information is available in our July 8, 2024, blog item.

Comments On Canada’s Updated Draft State Of PFAS Report And Revised Risk Management Scope Are Due September 11, 2024: The July 13, 2024, Canada Gazette includes a notice announcing the availability of the Updated Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (Updated Draft Report) and Revised Risk Management Scope for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) (Revised Risk Management Scope). The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) propose to recommend that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, be added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). According to the Revised Risk Management Scope, Canada is considering:

As a first step, a regulatory instrument under CEPA to restrict PFAS not currently regulated in firefighting foams; and
Additional regulatory instrument(s) under CEPA to prohibit other uses or sectors in relation to PFAS. Prioritization for prohibition may be based on factors such as socioeconomic considerations, the availability of feasible alternatives, and the potential for human and environmental exposure.

The Revised Risk Management Scope states that “[v]oluntary risk management actions are also being considered to achieve early results to reduce releases of PFAS, as a complement to the proposed regulatory instruments.” Comments are due September 11, 2024. More information is available in our July 12, 2024, blog item.

Supreme Court Holds That the Eighth Amendment Does Not Prevent Enforcement of Local Camping Bans, Authorizing a Significant Shift in Local Policies on Homelessness

Until recently, local policies on homelessness have been guided by two controversial rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Martin v. Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584 and Johnson v. City of Grants Pass (9th Cir. 2022) 50 F.4th 787.[1] However, the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson(2024) 603 U.S. ____, is likely to transform local jurisdictions’ policy approaches to managing homelessness. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the city’s ban on camping and parking overnight on public property.

By way of background, in Martin, the Ninth Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment’s restriction against cruel and unusual punishment barred cities from imposing criminal penalties for violations of public-camping ordinances whenever the number of homeless individuals exceeds the number of “practically available” shelter beds in a jurisdiction. In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit expanded on Martin and held that a city cannot enforce its camping ban or impose fines or civil penalties unless the city has enough shelter beds for its entire population. Since then, affected cities and states have widely criticized these two Ninth Circuit rulings, which effectively blocked the enforcement of local ordinances prohibiting or regulating camping and sleeping outdoors.

In the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s rulings and held that ordinances prohibiting camping, overnight parking, or sleeping outdoors do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment because these ordinances regulate “conduct” and “actions”, rather than “mere status.”

The Court focused on the practical implications of Martin and Johnson, finding that the Ninth Circuit created an unworkable and confusing test to evaluate public camping ordinances, based on subjective and vague determinations of who is “involuntarily” homeless. The Court also criticized judicial injunctions prohibiting the enforcement of public camping ordinances, finding that these determinations are “public policy responses” best handled by local governments and the legislature (not courts).

In doing so, the Court agreed with local jurisdictions that complained that the Ninth Circuit inappropriately limited available policymaking tools and “undermined” local efforts to address homelessness. The Court emphasized that local governments have “broad power” over the substance and enforcement of their laws and must be afforded “wide latitude” and “flexibility” to address homelessness.

Although the Court’s ruling authorizes the enforcement of public camping ordinances, it does not grant unfettered power to local jurisdictions. The Court acknowledges that public camping ordinances could still implicate other constitutional concerns, including potential violations under the Due Process Clause. The Court further notes that local governments are not required to adopt public camping ordinances, and may choose to narrow such laws by imposing relevant time, place, and manner restrictions.

Even with these limitations, the Court’s decision is likely to significantly alter the future of local policies on homelessness, especially throughout California. Local governments are now authorized to take more aggressive actions to enforce existing ordinances (or enact new ones) prohibiting or otherwise regulating overnight camping and parking on public property. Ordinances that include relevant time, place and manner restrictions (e.g., regulating when, where, and how people sleep in public) are likely to be particularly insulated from constitutional challenges.

We will continue to monitor updates to local policies on the homeless in response to this decision and provide updates as they become available.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See prior article here.

Listen to this post

by: Alexander L. Merritt, Kathryn C. Kafka of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more news on the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, visit the NLR Real Estate section.

Be Careful What You Write: What a Heavily Redacted Antitrust Complaint Teaches Us About Creating Problematic Documents in Transactions

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to stop Tempur Sealy’s proposed acquisition of Mattress Firm. See Federal Trade Comm’n v. Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc. and Mattress Firm Group Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-02508 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2024). On the same day, the FTC also commenced an administrative proceeding in its own court to block the transaction. See In re Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc. and Mattress Firm Group Inc., Docket No. 9433 (FTC Jul. 2, 2024). According to the complaints, Tempur Sealy is the world’s largest mattress supplier and Mattress Firm is the largest mattress retailer in the United States. Vertical mergers between manufacturers and retailers can often produce procompetitive benefits, but this transaction struck the FTC as anticompetitive. The FTC’s principal concern appears to be that Tempur Sealy would shut off its rivals’ access to Mattress Firm.

Supporting the FTC’s decision to sue, Federal Trade Commissioner Melissa Holyoak said, “Despite the increased likelihood of procompetitive effects from vertical mergers, they may still result in harm in some circumstances. Consistent with these well-established economic principles, I vote in favor of filing this complaint based upon the substantial evidence generated by staff’s thorough investigation, especially the parties’ own ordinary-course documents. I have reason to believe that the effect of Tempur Sealy’s acquisition of Mattress Firm ‘may be to substantially lessen competition.’” (Emphasis added).

What exactly was in these ordinary course documents that caused Holyoak to believe this merger violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act? The short answer is we don’t know. The complaints, which extensively quote some documents, are heavily redacted and the documents themselves, even in redacted form, are not attached to the complaints. Nor would we expect the documents to be attached, as they likely contain competitively sensitive information that ordinarily would not be on the public record. Rather than speculate about the documents themselves, let’s use the allegations in the FTC’s complaints as a tool to remind ourselves how documents are used in antitrust investigations and how lawyers and clients can work together to reduce the likelihood that potentially problematic documents are created.

What’s an “ordinary course” document? As the name suggests, an ordinary course document is one that is created by the parties in the course of their ordinary business activities. It may be a routinely issued report, an email or text exchange by two employees, Slack messages, a slide deck, board minutes or any other form of written communication. Antitrust regulators routinely use these documents to gain insight into how the parties see themselves in relation to the competition, the rationale for a transaction, and how the parties view the likely competitive effects of a transaction. Often regulators will place more emphasis on communications from senior leadership in a corporation as those individuals may have greater knowledge of the transaction and have more authority to “speak” for an entity than lower-level employees. Regulators will use these documents not only to support their own theories and claims, but also to contradict the parties’ advocacy about the procompetitive aspects of a deal.
How does the government obtain these ordinary course documents? In the case of the Tempur Sealy/Mattress Firm transaction and other high dollar value transactions, the parties were required to file Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification forms. When an HSR filing is required, the parties must produce documents that discuss the transaction in relation to certain specific topics, such as competition, competitors, markets, and market shares. These documents are usually not ordinary course documents as they were created specifically for the deal but are nevertheless critical in the regulators’ review of potential competitive issues. Documents routinely produced in the HSR process, such as Confidential Information Memoranda (CIM) and Management Presentations, may contain statements that could create potential antitrust concerns. Clients should recognize that even the smallest of things in a CIM or Management Presentation have the potential to create big problems, as government regulators will read every page of what is submitted to them. For example, assume that an HSR filing contains a 100-page deck intended to serve as a Management Presentation, and one page of that deck contains a sentence that says: “We [seller] are the dominant player in our industry and we face minimal competition.” The rest of the deck might be completely innocuous, but depending on the circumstances, that one sentence has the potential to ignite regulators’ interest.Some transactions, such as Tempur Sealy/Mattress Firm, undergo a Second Request process after HSR is filed. A Second Request is an extensive subpoena requesting documents and data from the parties that goes far beyond the HSR process. The Second Request process is what likely turned up the “ordinary course” documents mentioned in Holyoak’s statement. This included text messages. See, e.g., Paragraph 108 of the federal complaint and Paragraph 99 of the administrative complaint. Judging from the amount of redacted material referenced in the complaints, the FTC appears to believe there are many documents that portray this transaction in an anticompetitive light.
Clients should also be aware that the government’s authority to review and investigate transactions is not limited to only those transactions that require HSR filings; the government’s authority extends to any transaction that impacts competition in the United States. In addition to HSR filings, the government learns about deals through a variety of sources, such as press reports and third party complaints from customers or competitors. Accordingly, our views about document creation extend to all transactions, not just those requiring HSR premerger notification.
Document creation in transactions is a team sport. That means lawyers and clients should work together as a team to minimize the creation of potentially harmful documents. The team should also include investment bankers and other advisors who are generating documents that analyze the transaction. In ideal circumstances, clients will involve experienced antitrust lawyers early on to understand: 1) whether the transaction potentially raises substantive antitrust concerns, such as when two direct competitors combine; 2) if the transaction will require HSR notification; and 3) whether or not HSR is required, what are the guardrails or best practices the client should observe. Recognizing that we don’t always operate in ideal circumstances and lawyers may only become involved after certain documents are created, lawyers should nevertheless remain vigilant about documents from the time they become involved in a deal. Coaching clients and their advisors about document creation best practices is always critically important.
What are some best practices? Lawyers should proactively educate their clients on what to say (or not say) about the transaction and which words or phrases may be particularly susceptible to raising potential antitrust concerns. For example, words like “dominate” and “control” in relation to competition and competitors may create problems, as could market share statistics that overstate a seller’s prominence in a particular industry. Lawyers should also review drafts of documents such as CIMs, Management Presentations, and teasers to ensure that they are free of harmful verbiage.
Expect statements to be misunderstood or taken out of context: Reading the Tempur Sealy/Mattress Firm complaints, two things are clear: 1) the government relied on portions of documents to support its allegations; and 2) the context of many of the quoted statements is unknown. It may be the case that some of the statements the FTC found important become less important when the entire document is reviewed and the context of the statement is made clear. Relatedly, there may be other documents not referenced in the complaints that indicate the transaction has procompetitive benefits. Allegations in a complaint are just that – allegations – and the evidence that emerges as the case progresses may or may not support those allegations. That being said, parties are wise to follow the best practices above. Similarly, they are also wise to avoid making exaggerated statements or statements intended to be humorous. These statements may be misunderstood by government regulators who do not know the specific industry or its players as well as clients do.
Follow the general principle of “less is more” when it comes to document creation. Many transactions seem to move at lightning speed, but a moment of self-reflection can be very valuable. Ask yourself: do I need to write this, and if I do, what’s the best way to say it? Some organizations are more document-intensive than others, and there may be other reasons, unrelated to antitrust considerations, that require certain documentation. But in general, more documents are probably created than are truly necessary and more documents create the potential for more problems. Regardless, the key is to remember emails, texts, Slack messages, and slide decks may be read not only by their intended recipients but also by government antitrust regulators.

The Five Largest SEC Whistleblower Awards from the First Half of 2024

In the first half of 2024, the SEC Whistleblower Program awarded over $18 million to whistleblowers who aided in the agency’s enforcement efforts. Below are the top five awards from the first half of 2024.

Since its inception in 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Whistleblower Program has made significant strides, granting over $1.9 billion in whistleblower awards. In the first half of 2024, over $18 million was awarded to individuals who voluntarily provided original information that led to a successful enforcement action, a testament to the program’s effectiveness.

Under the SEC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers can receive 10-30% of the funds collected from a successful enforcement action based on their tip. The SEC does not disclose identifying information about award recipients, ensuring their protection and the program’s integrity.

Following are the top five whistleblower awards of the first half 2024:

1. $3.6 Million

On June 17, the SEC granted two claimants a total of $3.6 million, with the first receiving $2,400,000 and the second receiving $1,200,000.

The SEC acknowledged the significant contribution of the first Claimant whose disclosure “caused the staff to open the investigation” and “provided ongoing assistance by participating in interviews and providing documents, which saved Commission resources by helping the staff obtain information in an efficient manner.”

Claimant Two “provided information that caused the staff to inquire concerning different conduct as part of a current investigation” and “provided ongoing assistance by participating in interviews and providing documents, which helped to expedite the staff’s investigation,” according to the award order.

The award document noted that Claimant Two received a reduced reward for reporting information to the commission months after the staff had opened its investigation. Furthermore, it was noted that Claimant One provided a higher level of assistance than Claimant Two and that Claimant One’s information ultimately formed the basis of more charges in the Covered Action.

2. $3.4 Million.

On May 31, the SEC granted a payment of $3.4 million to a single Claimant. Five others filed for an award for the Covered Action but were denied.

According to the SEC, “Claimant voluntarily provided original information that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action,” underscoring whistleblowers’ crucial role in enforcing securities regulations.
“Enforcement staff opened the Covered Action investigation based on a referral from staff in the Division of Examinations, and not because of information submitted by any of the claimants.” the agency states.

However, it notes that the whistleblower “met with Enforcement staff” and “provided new, helpful information that substantially advanced the investigation.

The SEC further explains that the awarded whistleblower suffered hardship as a result of blowing the whistle and that there were “high law enforcement interests in this matter.”

Two of the Claimants were denied because they did not have personal knowledge of the investigation’s opening. One Claimant was denied because their tip was primarily publicly available information, and another was denied because their information did not lead to the success of the Covered Action.

3. $2.5 MILLION

On June 20, the SEC awarded $2.5 million to Joint Claimants.

According to the SEC, “the record demonstrates that Joint Claimants voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.”

The Joint Claimants “alerted Commission staff to the conduct, prompting an examination to be commenced that resulted in a referral to staff in the Division of Enforcement and the opening of an investigation,” the SEC explains in the award order.

They also “provided significant additional information and assistance during the course of the examination and investigation, including communicating with Commission staff multiple times, which helped to save staff time and resources.”

4. $2.4 Million

On April 3, the SEC granted two claimants a combined award of $2,400,000. The first Claimant received $2 million, and the second received $400,000.

According to the SEC, “Claimant 1 qualifies as a whistleblower and Claimant 1 voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that caused Enforcement staff to open an investigation that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.”

However, in 2022, Claimant 2 was originally denied as the SEC claimed that their disclosure was made by a general counsel on behalf of an entity owned by Claimant 2 and not on behalf of Claimant 2 as an individual.

Following the SEC’s 2022 denial, the Claimant filed a petition for review of their denial in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The SEC then sought a remand in the case and requested further information from the Claimant.

The Claimant provided “a new declaration from the entity’s general counsel that expressly states that the general counsel represented Claimant 2 in Claimant 2’s personal capacity throughout the process of providing information regarding the Company to the SEC.”

The SEC thus determined that Claimant 2 did qualify as a whistleblower and had “voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action.”

This marked the first time the SEC awarded a whistleblower who appealed an award denial before a federal appeals court.

5. $2.4 Million

On April 25, an individual Claimant was awarded $2.4 million after voluntarily providing original information to the Commission.

According to the SEC, “after internally reporting concerns, Claimant submitted a tip to the Commission that prompted the opening of the investigation and thereafter provided continuing assistance to the staff.”

Brooke Burkhart and Avery Hudson also contributed to this article.

Digging for Trouble: The Double-Edged Sword of Decisions to Report Misconduct

On May 10, 2024, Romy Andrianarisoa, former Chief of Staff to the President of Madagascar, was convicted for soliciting bribes from Gemfields Group Ltd (Gemfields), a UK-based mining company specializing in rubies and emeralds. Andrianarisoa, along with her associate Philippe Tabuteau, was charged after requesting significant sums of money and a five percent equity stake in a mining venture in exchange for facilitating exclusive mining rights in Madagascar.

The investigation, spearheaded by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA), began when Gemfields reported their suspicions of corruption. Using covert surveillance, the NCA recorded Andrianarisoa and Tabuteau requesting 250,000 Swiss Francs (approximately £215,000) and a five percent equity stake, potentially worth around £4 million, as payments for their services. Gemfields supported the investigation and prosecution throughout.

During the investigation, six covertly recorded audio clips were released, suggesting Andrianarisoa had significant influence over Madagascar’s leadership and her expectation of substantial financial rewards. The arrests in August 2023 and subsequent trial at Southwark Crown Court culminated in prison sentences of three and a half years for Andrianarisoa and two years and three months for Tabuteau.

Comment

Gemfields has, quite rightly, been praised for reporting this conduct to the NCA and supporting their investigation and prosecution. In doing so, they made a strong ethical decision and went above and beyond their legal obligations: there is no legal requirement on Gemfields to report solicitations of this kind.

Such a decision will also have been difficult. Reporting misconduct and supporting the investigation is likely to have exposed Gemfields to significant risk and costs:

First, in order to meet their obligations as prosecutors, put together the best case, and comply with disclosure requirements, the NCA likely required Gemfields employees to attend interviews and provide documents. These activities require significant legal support and can be very costly both in time and money.
Secondly, such disclosures and interviews might identify unrelated matters of interest to the NCA. It is not uncommon in these cases for corporates reporting misconduct to become the subject of unrelated allegations of misconduct and separate investigations themselves.
Furthermore, to the extent that Gemfields supported the covert surveillance aspects of the NCA’s investigation, there may have been significant safety risks to both the employees participating, and unrelated employees in Madagascar. Such risks can be extremely difficult to mitigate.
Finally, the willingness to publicly and voluntarily report Andrianarisoa is likely to have created a chilling effect on Gemfields’ ability to do legitimate business in Madagascar and elsewhere. Potential partners may be dissuaded from working with Gemfields for fear of being dragged into similar investigations whether warranted or not.

Organisations in these situations face difficult decisions. Many will, quite rightly, want to be good corporate citizens, but in doing so, must recognise the potential costs and risks to their business and, ultimately, their obligations to shareholders and owners. In circumstances where there is no obligation to report, the safest option may be to walk away and carefully record the decision to do so. No doubt, Gemfields carefully considered these risks prior to reporting Andrianarisoa’s misconduct.

Businesses facing similar challenges should:

Ensure they understand their legal obligations. Generally, there is no obligation to report a crime. However, particularly for companies and firms operating in the financial services or other regulated sectors, this is not universally the case.
Carefully consider the risks and benefits associated with any decision to report another’s misconduct, including not only financial costs, but time and safety costs too.
Develop a compliance programme that assists and educates teams on how to correctly identify misconduct, escalate appropriately, and decide whether to report.

Supreme Court Decision Overturns Chevron: Impact on Cannabis Industry

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision and opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, significantly overruling the nearly 40-year-old precedent set by Chevron. The Chevron decision required federal courts to defer to a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute unless that interpretation was “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary” to the statute. This meant that if an agency such as the DEA published a bulletin or letter interpreting an ambiguous law, courts were generally bound to follow this interpretation due to the agency’s presumed expertise.

The Shift in Legal Interpretation

Loper Bright Enterprises has fundamentally changed this legal landscape. Now courts, rather than government agencies, are considered the best equipped to interpret ambiguous statutes. This shift means that a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute is now merely persuasive and not binding on the courts. This can be likened to a Pennsylvania court interpreting a Pennsylvania law and considering, but not being bound by, a Delaware state court’s interpretation of a similar corporate law. Just as Pennsylvania courts can choose to defer to, distinguish from, or disregard Delaware court decisions, federal courts now have the same discretion regarding agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Impact on the Cannabis Industry

This change has significant implications for the cannabis industry. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforces federal drug laws and has issued numerous letters and bulletins determining the legality of various cannabis substances. For example, the DEA issued opinions that seemingly argued that Delta-8 THC products and THCA products were not allowed under the 2018 Farm Bill. I have generally disagreed with these interpretations, believing that the DEA incorrectly cited statutes related to hemp at harvest rather than downstream products.

With Loper Bright Enterprises, these DEA letters will lose their authoritative value. Courts are no longer bound to follow DEA interpretations and can more readily consider arguments opposing the DEA’s stance. This development is critical for the cannabis industry, as it opens the door for courts to reinterpret federal drug laws and potentially challenge the DEA’s restrictive interpretations of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Importance of This Shift

The overruling of Chevron by Loper Bright Enterprises marks a pivotal change in administrative law, particularly impacting the cannabis industry. This shift of interpretive authority from government agencies to the courts means there is now greater potential for legal challenges to restrictive interpretations of cannabis laws. This change enhances the ability of cannabis businesses and advocates to contest adverse decisions and interpretations by the DEA and other agencies, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for the industry.

Trademark Insights: What the First Precedential TTAB Expungement Decision Means for You

As a trademark applicant, encountering a prior registration that obstructs your path to registration is never a pleasant experience (nor for your attorneys who have to inform you about it). The frustration only intensifies when it becomes evident that the registered mark has never been used for the specified goods or services. Until 2021, the sole recourse with the USPTO to address this issue was filing a Petition to Cancel, with the hope that the registrant would not respond, leading to a swift default judgment. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and a response means expending an appreciable amount of time and money before resolution can be obtained, often through a settlement agreement.

In late 2021, the landscape changed with the passing of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, which brought about two new ex parte proceedings: reexamination and expungement. The goal was to provide faster, more efficient, and less expensive alternatives to contested cancellation proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”).

Expungement proceedings, in particular, offer a means to cancel trademarks that have never been used in commerce. “Any party can request cancellation [by the USPTO Director] of some or all of the goods or services in a registration because the registrant never used the trademark in commerce with those goods or services.” This action is available against all types of registrations, but must be requested between three and ten years after the registration date.

Now, after two-and-a-half years of these proceedings, on July 1, 2024, the Board issued its first precedential decision in an expungement proceeding: In Re Locus Link USA.

In July 2022, a third party filed expungement actions against Locus Link USA’s (the “Registrant”) two SMARTLOCK registrations, alleging nonuse of the marks for the specified goods: “components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers.” The USPTO Director found sufficient evidence of nonuse and proposed cancellation. The registrant responded with evidence of use in the form of specimens showing connectors for metal tubing and air condition components, arguing that this evidence was sufficient, and had been previously accepted by the USPTO during examination. The USPTO maintained the cancellation, noting that the subject registrations only covered the specific goods following the term “namely” in the identification, here “evaporative air coolers.”

On appeal, the Registrant argued that the SMARTLOCK marks are in use in connection with the goods identified in the registration because the identification of goods covers components for evaporative air coolers. The Board disagreed and affirmed the USPTO’s decision.

Goods and services in an application should “state common names for goods or services, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid indefinite words and phrases.” TMEP § 1402.03(a), cited in In re Solid State Design Inc., Ser. No. 87269041, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *18 (TTAB 2018).

Applicants take notice: “the goods or services listed after the term ‘namely’ must further define the introductory wording that proceeds ‘namely’ using definite terms within the scope of the introductory words.” In other words, the goods or services that come after “namely” must specifically define the broader category mentioned before. Essentially, “namely” helps to clarify otherwise vague descriptions.

In this case, the broad category is “components for air conditioning and cooling systems.” The applications were only accepted for registration because they specified “namely, evaporative air coolers.” This means the SMARTLOCK marks cover evaporative air coolers that are components for air cooling systems. It does not cover component parts that go into making evaporative air coolers.

Key Takeaways

Grammar Matters. Properly identifying goods and services in an application is vital. The USPTO continues to increase its specificity requirements for identifying goods and services, and applicants need to ensure not only original identifications, but also amendments to identifications proposed by an examiner accurately and correct reflect their goods and services. In Locus Link, was the Board, splitting hairs? Maybe, but the lesson is critically important for obtaining and maintaining trademark registrations.
Specimen Acceptance Isn’t Conclusive. The acceptance of specimens by the USPTO does not control the ultimate question of use. Although not a new concept, one to keep in mind. It is more important to have multiple records of proper and consistent trademark use than to rely on a single specimen. It is wise to retain an attorney with experienced eyes to review your use specimens prior to filing for both registration and for maintenance of your registrations.
File for New Marks as Necessary. While the SMARTLOCK marks were never in use for the goods, nonuse or lack of coverage can happen. Businesses expand and evolve over the years and so too should the portfolio of trademark registrations. It is important to occasionally audit your trademark portfolio to look for any gaps in coverage for certain marks and certain goods and services. Do not just think you have proper coverage, be sure so you are in the best offensive and defensive position possible for your brand. You never know who else is out there, looking to use your mark. If your registrations are in not order, your marks are vulnerable.

It is still early days for these new ex parte proceedings, but the hope is that they will prove a useful tool moving forward. This precedential decision although not groundbreaking does provide a good overview of the relatively new expungement proceeding and some good reminders for trademark owners.

United States | H-1B, AOS, Schedule A and Other Regulatory Agenda Updates

According to the recent publication of the Spring 2024 regulatory agenda, the Biden administration has the H-1B modernization rule, adjustment of status proposal and seasonal/temporary worker regulations targeted for publication by the end of 2024. The next step toward Schedule A reform will occur this August.

H-1B modernization: The Department of Homeland Security proposed to amend regulations governing H-1B specialty occupations and certain F-1 students. DHS accepted comments on its wide-ranging proposed rule until Dec. 22, 2023 and finalized and implemented H-1B registration selection provisions in April 2024. The agency says it “continues to consider the suggestions made in public comments received as they relate to the other proposed provisions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2023 NPRM, and intends to finalize the remaining provisions in one or more actions.”
Lawful permanent residence (adjustment of status proposal): To reduce processing times, improve agency partnerships and promote efficiencies in visa availability, DHS plans to amend regulations governing adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence in the U.S. including permitting concurrent filing of a visa petition and the application for AOS for the employment-based fourth preference category. The target date for publishing the proposal is now August 2024. After publication, there will be a public comment period.
Schedule A: The Department of Labor is considering updating Schedule A and opened a Request for Information period on Dec. 21, 2023 that was extended through May 13, 2024. During this period, the public provided input on whether Schedule A served as an effective tool for addressing current labor shortages, and how DOL can create a timely, coherent, and transparent methodology for identifying science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other occupations that are experiencing labor shortages while ensuring the employment of foreign nationals does not displace U.S. workers or adversely affect their wages and working conditions. According to the regulatory agenda, DOL aims to complete analysis of the comments in August 2024.
H-2 modernization: DHS published a proposal for modernizing H-2 programs on Sept. 20, 2023 intended to reduce inefficiencies, enhance pay protections and address “aspects of the program that may unintentionally result in exploitation or other abuse of persons seeking to come to this country as H-2A and H-2B workers.” Comments were accepted through November 2023 and final action is targeted for November 2024.
Nonimmigrant workers: DHS plans to propose amendments to regulations governing certain nonimmigrant workers including updating the employment authorization rules regarding dependent spouses of certain nonimmigrants; increasing flexibilities for certain nonimmigrant workers and modernizing policies and procedures for employment authorization documents. The targeted publication date is now January 2025.
Immigrant worker reforms: DHS also plans to propose to amend regulations governing employment-based immigrant petitions in the first, second and third preference classifications. According to the regulatory agenda, proposed rule amendments would include updating and modernizing provisions governing extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers; clarifying evidentiary requirements for first preference classifications, second preference national interest waiver classifications and physicians of national and international renown; ensuring the integrity of the I-140 program and correcting errors and omissions. Publication of the proposed rule is now targeted for June 2025.

BAL Analysis: While these regulations would have a significant impact on immigration programs, they are at different stages in the rulemaking process, and policies are still being formulated. Proposed regulations are subject to a public notice-and-comment period, during which members of the public may submit feedback. BAL continues to monitor progress on the regulatory agenda and will provide clients with updates on individual regulations as they move through the rulemaking process.

What is Market Manipulation?

The financial market is supposed to be a place where investors put their hard-earned money to work. Market manipulation disrupts the playing field, undermining the integrity of financial systems and causing a great deal of harm to investors. Between 2020 and 2022, the United States recovered $2.7 billion from market manipulation incidents.

What Does Market Manipulation Mean?

The stock market thrives on constant movement as part of a healthy financial ecosystem. However, when someone artificially exploits the supply and demand for securities, the stock market sees a shift in the pricing and value of certain stocks. Market manipulation is an attempt to take advantage of those shifts with insider information, or create false ups and downs to turn a profit. A simple example might be spreading misinformation about a stock in order to cause its price to rise or fall.

How Market Manipulation Works

Market manipulation disrupts the natural flow of supply and demand in a security. For example, a person may attempt to manipulate the stock market in their favor by engaging in a series of transactions designed to make it look like there is a flurry of activity around their stock. This illusion prompts others to buy into such stock, convinced that the company is on the rise because of this artificial energy. This way, the person who began the market manipulation ends up in a better position.

Who Manipulates Stocks?

The stock market is manipulated by any number of bad actors. Investors, company leadership, and anyone who buys and sells securities may attempt to partake in market manipulation.

Why is Market Manipulation Illegal?

If the stock market naturally ebbs and flows, and people are always seeking to profit from it, why is market manipulation illegal?

The answer lies in the importance of honest trading practices and consumer trust. Market manipulation is a method of misleading investors, usually by spreading false information or artificially adjusting prices. Just as you should not sell someone a house by claiming that it has six stories when it is really a shack, similarly you should not manipulate security prices to scam investors.

Who Investigates Market Manipulation?

The US Department of Justice’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Division (MIMF) investigates claims of securities fraud and market manipulation. The MIMF Division prosecutors can bring criminal charges as well as civil claims for damages against those accused of market manipulation. They utilize data analysis tools and traditional law enforcement techniques to identify and prosecute instances of securities fraud, manipulation, spoofing, insider trading, and more.

How Big Players Manipulate the Stock Market

While more smaller and highly liquid stocks or widely traded securities, are most susceptible to market manipulation, major players can influence the stock market in significant ways. Large financial institutions like Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have a massive hold on how the overall market moves. The 2008 financial crisis is a reminder of how securitization and risky trading of mortgage-backed securities played such a role and led to a ripple effect throughout the market.

Market Manipulation Examples

Stock market manipulation is only limited by the bounds of human ingenuity. Unfortunately, there are a number of ways scam artists attempt to manipulate the market. We have outlined common market manipulation schemes that have emerged over the years:

CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET MANIPULATION

Although cryptocurrency is less regulated than other investments, it can still be subject to market manipulation. The legal classification of crypto assets as securities is still debatable. However, an August 2023 ruling in Manhattan federal court stated that all cryptocurrencies should be considered securities, regardless of the context in which they are sold. The SEC guidelines on the subject, meanwhile, have hinged on whether or not the particular blockchain is sufficiently decentralized.

The ICO, or Initial Coin Offering, is usually the area where cryptocurrency market manipulation occurs. Crypto is particularly vulnerable to the spread of misinformation on social media, the use of celebrities to artificially inflate an ICO’s value, and pump-and-dump schemes.

HEDGE FUNDS MARKET MANIPULATION

The 2021 GameStop scenario highlighted the upper hand hedge funds often have in the market. In this case, a group of individuals met online and attempted to manipulate the market. Retail investors on Reddit collectively purchased the stock in large quantities after being concerned about the alleged short selling by hedge funds that could devalue GameStop. This surge in buying pressure forced hedge funds to buy back their shares for more money to cover their short sales. However, in the long run, many hedge fund managers profited from the massively increased prices.

FUTURES MARKET MANIPULATION

Attempting to create monopoly power, or “cornering the market” is the primary method of futures market manipulation. This strategy involves a major player artificially creating scarcity in the market by buying up available assets, along with a large stake in a futures contract for delivery at a later date. This is followed by the player refusing to sell at anything except their own price, creating a squeeze on investors who need to buy contracts to fulfill their delivery obligations. Because the futures market hinges upon upcoming deliverables, it forces short sellers to buy contracts at inflated prices from the dominant player.

CROSS-MARKET MANIPULATION

Cross-market manipulation has become more prevalent in recent years, as technology allows trades to happen in real-time and with a higher frequency. Cross-market manipulation is the effort to trade in one venue with the goal of affecting the price of the same security or financial instrument in another market. Cross-market manipulation is also known as inter-trading venue manipulation.

CHURNING MARKET MANIPULATION

Churning is an illegal practice designed to create the illusion of activity and generate commission fees. It involves an excessive amount of trading in a brokerage account solely to generate commissions for the broker from each sale, and not for the client’s benefit.

WHAT IS SPOOFING MARKET MANIPULATION?

Order spoofing, or spoofing, is a method of market manipulation designed to generate interest in a security. One or more players place multiple buy or sell orders on a stock to adjust its price, only to cancel them once other traders accordingly adjust their activities. Thus, the bids are “spoofs,” and therefore, never meant to be followed through.

WHAT IS COORDINATED PRICE MANIPULATION IN THE STOCK MARKET?

Coordinated price manipulation involves agreements between competitors to artificially inflate or deflate stock market prices. For instance, short selling, while legal on its own as a strategy, can cross the line into market manipulation by generating fear around securities to unnaturally lower its price.

WHAT IS LAYERING MARKET MANIPULATION?

Layering is a form of spoofing that involves placing a series of orders designed to be eventually canceled. However, in layering market manipulation efforts, the bids are all placed at different price points, setting the market price somewhere in the middle of the fake trades. This way, the manipulator achieves a better understanding of the market price based on their fake activity, and can trade on the other side of the market to turn in a profit while canceling extraneous offers.

FRONT-RUNNING MARKET MANIPULATION

Front running is often done by an individual broker who has insider information about a future development that will impact stock price. For example, a broker who is ordered to sell a large amount of stock instead goes to their own account before executing the trade and dumps their stock in the same company, now knowing the market price is predicted to plummet. Here, the broker has “run out in front” of natural market fluctuations to illegally sell their stock.

SHORT SELLING MARKET MANIPULATION

Short selling can become market manipulation in the event of cross-market manipulation or coordinated price manipulation.

Naked short selling is the illegal practice of selling shares in an asset before acquiring them, or ensuring that they can in fact be purchased or acquired. The goal here is the same as in usual shorting; however, in short selling, shares must be borrowed before they can be offered to other investors.

PUMP-AND-DUMP SCHEMES

Pump-and-dump schemes typically involve spreading misinformation about a stock in order to “pump up” a frenzy of orders and investments. The perpetrators then “dump” their stocks at the new and artificially inflated price point. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warns that microcap securities are particularly vulnerable to pump-and-dump schemes because of limited publicly available information.

How Do You Tell if a Stock is Being Manipulated?

Opportunities for market manipulation have become more widespread with mobile trading apps, AI algorithms and bot activity enabling trading to happen in the blink of an eye from anywhere. Traders must examine stock market activity more thoroughly, keeping an eye out for possible warning signs of market manipulation:

Unlikely performance compared to company indexes: The stock market cannot tell the full picture of a company’s well-being. It is better to compare market prices against other metrics like revenue, growth potential, and capitalization. When a company’s stock prices remain low even as other signs point to growth, it may be a sign that artificial market activity is at play.
Fake news on social media: The spread of bot-led accounts designed to appear like genuine human activity on social media points toward the potential for misinformation. False information often plays a key role in market manipulation and price-adjusting efforts.
Flurries of activity: Churning, spoofing, and layering all involve sudden onsets of orders not related to genuine developments. A sudden rush can indicate that a stock is being manipulated. Likewise, a large volume of activity without matching price action can be a warning sign of wash trading.

How Do You Stop Market Manipulation?

Here are some tips to protect yourself from stock market manipulators:

Understand your risk appetite and ensure you have an exit strategy for your investments
Verify claims that seem too good to be true
Avoid excessively large bids or “limited time offers”
Review your account activity on a regular basis and report any suspicious activity in your account

SEC MARKET MANIPULATION

The SEC runs the Office of the Whistleblower, which allows whistleblowers to come forward to anonymously report market manipulation. The SEC Office of the Whistleblower has awarded over $1 billion to whistleblowers who have shared information leading to a recovery after a stock market manipulation scheme.

CFTC MARKET MANIPULATION

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) relies heavily on tips and whistleblower information to ensure fair trading practices in the commodity and futures markets. The CFTC Whistleblower Program offers rewards for information as well as protection against retaliation.

How Do You Prove Market Manipulation?

A whistleblower attorney can be your strongest ally to help you gather proof of market manipulation, including:

Proof of intent to defraud: Emails, text messages, social media posts, and sworn testimonies to private conversations
Refutation of legitimate business purposes: Internal memos, monthly reports, notes from meetings, staff emails, etc. to show that the suspicious activity was not in pursuit of legitimate business purposes
Records of trades, monthly account statements, canceled checks, wire transfers, stock transfers, and more: All of these documents can help present a bigger financial picture to illustrate the motive to manipulate market prices

What Are the Consequences of Market Manipulation?

Market manipulation undermines fair and stable markets, and erodes investors’ trust in financial systems. When investors fear manipulation, they may become less confident and willing to invest in diverse portfolios. Market manipulation also creates an uneven playing field, hurting fair competition when scam artists profit at the expense of investors who may lose savings and watch their assets dissolve.

Rewards for Reporting Market Manipulation

You may qualify as a protected whistleblower under the following statutes:

SEC Whistleblower Program
CFTC Whistleblower Program
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act
False Claims Act
State False Claims Acts and additional state whistleblower statutes

How Are Whistleblowers Protected After Reporting Market Manipulation?

Whistleblowers can anonymously report suspected market manipulation through the SEC Whistleblower Program and have their identity redacted even from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Whistleblowers who have been retaliated against by their employers can sue for the following actions:

Reinstatement to former seniority level
Payment of double back pay, with interest
Payment of front pay, in cases where reinstatement is not possible
Attorney fees and legal costs
Additional damages

Biggest Market Manipulation Cases

New market manipulation cases are constantly coming to light, as whistleblowers step forward to reveal wrongdoings in the stock market. Some of the biggest market manipulation settlements include:

$1.186 billion against Glencore International AG: The CFTC ordered Glencore to pay $1.186 billion to settle accusations that the energy and commodities trading firm strategically manipulated at least four US-based S&P Global Platts physical oil benchmarks from 2007 to 2018.
$920 million from JP Morgan for spoofing: The 2020 settlement ordered JP Morgan Chase to pay $920.2 million to settle allegations of at least eight years of spoofing in precious metals and US Treasury futures contracts.
$249 million from Morgan Stanley and former executive Pawan Passi: In 2024, the SEC charged Morgan Stanley and its former executive Pawan Passi for executing block trades and acting on insider information. The firm agreed to pay $249 million to settle allegations of multi-year wrongdoing.

What is the SEC Doing about Market Manipulation?

The SEC relies on tips from whistleblowers to take out insider trading rings, spoofing attempts, pump-and-dump schemes, and other kinds of market manipulation attempts. If you have information about such tactics, you may be able to take part in the SEC Whistleblower Program. A whistleblower lawyer with Tycko & Zavareei LLP can help make sure your claim is as strong as possible before you bring it to the SEC. Remember, information once reported is no longer eligible for a reward.

Market Manipulation: FAQs

IS MARKET MANIPULATION ILLEGAL?

Yes. While everyone wants to “get ahead” on the stock market, manipulating the market is an illegal activity that can result in criminal penalties like jail time, as well as the imposition of civil fines and damages.

WHAT IS A REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE OF MARKET MANIPULATION?

One of the most notorious examples of market manipulation is the 2001 Enron scandal. When the energy company was found to have altered and misrepresented financial statements to inflate its stock price, it went bankrupt and multiple executives were indicted for the fraud.

WHO DOES MARKET MANIPULATION HURT?

Market manipulation hurts investors who lose money on investments that are either illegitimate or inaccurately represented. At the same time, its negative impact may also be felt throughout the economy, the 2008-2009 Great Recession being a case in point.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET ABUSE AND MARKET MANIPULATION?

Market manipulation is a specific tactic within the larger issue of market abuse. Market manipulation focuses on artificially controlling prices to secure unearned profit, whereas market abuse encompasses various schemes with the aim of disadvantaging investors for personal gain.

The End of Chevron Deference and the Anticipated Impact on Withdrawal Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the decades-old Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute. (See “Go Fish! U.S. Supreme Court Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ to Federal Agencies: What It Means for Employers”) Following the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts must exercise independent judgment in reviewing the agency’s interpretation of the statute. Courts may apply the standard set forth in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134 (1944), in which a court can uphold a regulation if it finds the agency’s interpretation of the statute persuasive.

The Loper Bright decision could prove to have an immediate impact on the actions of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The PBGC is a federal agency with regulatory authority over the withdrawal liability provisions in Title IV of ERISA. Two recent actions taken by the PBGC that are under current scrutiny figure to be challenged under Loper Bright: the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) plan asset phase-in and withdrawal liability interest rate assumption regulations.

Conditions for MEPPs Receiving Special Financial Assistance (SFA)

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) provided for SFA for troubled multiemployer pension plans (MEPPs). The SFA program will provide between $74 and $91 billion in assistance to eligible MEPPs. Pursuant to ARPA, Congress delegated authority to the PBGC to issue “reasonable conditions” for SFA applications and for withdrawal liability calculated by SFA recipients. On July 8, 2022, the PBGC published a final rule detailing the eligibility criteria, application process, and restrictions and conditions associated with a MEPPs’ use of SFA funds.

As previously discussed in “More Bad News for Employers in the PBGC Final Rule,” the final rule expresses PBGC’s opinion that “payment of an SFA was not intended to reduce withdrawal liability or to make it easier for employers to withdraw.” Consistent with these concerns, the PBGC’s final rule mandated that recipient MEPPs “phase-in” the SFA as a plan asset over a 10-year period. This interpretation will significantly (and arguably artificially) increase the amount of many employers’ withdrawal liability. It is anticipated that the final rule will be challenged in the near future.

Withdrawal Liability Interest Rate Assumption

The interest rate assumptions used by an MEPP to calculate withdrawal liability can have a massive impact on the amount of an employer’s liability. In 1980, when amending Title IV of ERISA by enacting the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), Congress delegated authority to the PBGC to issue regulations relating to these critical interest rates assumptions. To date, PBGC has not done so.

Specifically, in response to several recent court rulings (See “Withdrawal Liability Interest Rate Must Reflect Projected Investment Return, D.C. Circuit Holds”), the PBGC issued a proposed regulation to allegedly “make clear that use of 4044 rates [the settlement interest rate], either as a standalone assumption or combined with funding interest assumptions represents a valid approach to selecting an interest rate assumption to determine withdrawal liability in all circumstances.” Even more problematic, the proposed rule states that a “plan’s actuary would be permitted to determine withdrawal liability under the proposed rule without regard to section 4213(a)(1) [including foregoing the reasonableness and actuarial best estimate requirements].” The proposed rule directly contradicts recent judicial interpretations of the referenced statute that was enacted as part of MPPAA over 44 years ago.

Further, the PBGC’s proposed rule ignored the critical issue of whether the selection of an interest rate that ignores the statutory reasonableness and best estimate requirements satisfies other provisions of ERISA, such as Section 4221(a)(3)(B)(i). In this regard, and consistent with Loper Bright, several Circuit Courts of Appeal have already exercised their independent judgment to interpret the statutory “best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan” language as referring to the “unique characteristics of the plan” such as the plan’s investment asset mix and the expected rate of return on such assets. These recent Circuit Court decisions therefore directly contradict the PBGC’s proposed regulations. Any final regulation promulgated by PBGC that follows the proposed regulations would inevitably be challenged and resolved under the less-deferential standard established under Loper Bright.

Final Thoughts

The exact impact of Loper Bright on agency actions in general and the PBGC actions discussed above remains to be seen. Since Skidmore is still good law, a court that is sympathetic to an agency’s position could still opt to defer to that interpretation. Courts will no doubt be busy with a plethora of suits challenging administrative actions. The two current hot-button topics discussed above seem destined to be challenged and resolved by judges in a post-Chevron world. The resolution of these issues will have massive implications for employers with significant potential withdrawal liability exposure.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. $3.6 Million

2. $3.4 Million.

3. $2.5 MILLION

4. $2.4 Million

5. $2.4 Million

Share this:

Like this:

Comment

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Key Takeaways

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

What Does Market Manipulation Mean?

How Market Manipulation Works

Who Manipulates Stocks?

Why is Market Manipulation Illegal?

Who Investigates Market Manipulation?

How Big Players Manipulate the Stock Market

Market Manipulation Examples

CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET MANIPULATION

HEDGE FUNDS MARKET MANIPULATION

FUTURES MARKET MANIPULATION

CROSS-MARKET MANIPULATION

CHURNING MARKET MANIPULATION

WHAT IS SPOOFING MARKET MANIPULATION?

WHAT IS COORDINATED PRICE MANIPULATION IN THE STOCK MARKET?

WHAT IS LAYERING MARKET MANIPULATION?

FRONT-RUNNING MARKET MANIPULATION

SHORT SELLING MARKET MANIPULATION

PUMP-AND-DUMP SCHEMES

How Do You Tell if a Stock is Being Manipulated?

How Do You Stop Market Manipulation?

SEC MARKET MANIPULATION

CFTC MARKET MANIPULATION

How Do You Prove Market Manipulation?

What Are the Consequences of Market Manipulation?

Rewards for Reporting Market Manipulation

How Are Whistleblowers Protected After Reporting Market Manipulation?

Biggest Market Manipulation Cases

What is the SEC Doing about Market Manipulation?

Market Manipulation: FAQs

IS MARKET MANIPULATION ILLEGAL?

WHAT IS A REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE OF MARKET MANIPULATION?

WHO DOES MARKET MANIPULATION HURT?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET ABUSE AND MARKET MANIPULATION?

Share this:

Like this:

Conditions for MEPPs Receiving Special Financial Assistance (SFA)

Withdrawal Liability Interest Rate Assumption

Final Thoughts

Share this:

Like this: