Regulatory and Legal Reform

The NAM secured a critical win Monday when the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order reversing course on a novel rule interpretation that would have forced private companies to disclose proprietary financial information publicly, Law 360 (subscription) reports.

What’s going on: In 2021, the SEC adopted a novel reinterpretation of SEC Rule 15c2-11, imposing the rule’s public disclosure requirements on private companies that raise capital via corporate bond issuances under SEC Rule 144A—without giving manufacturers the opportunity to provide comment on the damaging impacts of such a consequential change.

• The NAM and the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers pursued multipronged litigation and advocacy efforts arguing to the Commission and to the courts that the SEC’s actions were both procedurally improper and substantively indefensible.
• Rule 15c2-11 requires public disclosures for the protection of everyday investors in publicly traded companies that issue so-called “penny stocks.”
• But in 2020, the SEC expanded the rule to apply to privately held companies issuing corporate bonds to large institutional investors under Rule 144A.
• For decades prior, Rule 144A permitted trades in private companies’ fixed-incomes securities without public disclosure of the issuers’ financial information. Indeed, the SEC’s entire purpose for adopting Rule 144A was to allow companies to access the debt markets without public disclosure of their financial and business-strategy information.

NAM in the news: The SEC took the rare step of reversing its position on Monday, declaring that “it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors” to exempt Rule 144A fixed-income securities from the requirements of Rule 15c2-11.

• “The order comes after industry groups petitioned the agency to provide relief to certain corporate debt issuers. The National Association of Manufacturers and the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers, which sought such relief in November 2022, also sued the agency in September, arguing that the SEC’s policy was enacted without public input and could harm job-creation efforts, given how many private companies rely on 144A bonds,” Law360 reports.
• Bloomberg Tax (subscription) also covered the news.

Why it’s important: Expansion of Rule 15c2-11 would have meant higher borrowing costs and less liquidity in the market—and resulted in more than 100,000 job losses a year, according to recent EY analysis prepared on behalf of the NAM.

Our take: The SEC’s action not only restores private companies’ ability to access the debt markets, but also exemplifies why the NAM litigates—as a last line of defense, to force an agency’s hand.

• “This order from the SEC is a landmark victory for manufacturers and a powerful affirmation of the NAM Legal Center’s ability to rein in regulatory overreach,” NAM Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly said Tuesday. “We are thrilled that the Commission has reversed course on this unlawful attempt to impose a novel, onerous and wholly unjustified regulatory mandate on private companies.”
• Added KAM President and CEO Frank Jemley: “We applaud the SEC’s decision to withdraw its ill-conceived proposal. American business and free enterprise are best served when government respects the boundaries of its authority, which the SEC clearly did not do in this matter.”

The NAM is leading the charge in urging the Biden administration to walk back a proposed revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

With the release of a letter signed by more than 70 associations representing nearly every sector of the U.S. economy and a new video advertisement, the NAM is highlighting how these regulatory actions would devastate the economy and actively undermine President Biden’s goal to expand manufacturing in the United States.

What’s going on: When the Environmental Protection Agency set forth the tentative new air quality standards earlier this year, manufacturers quickly recognized that if enacted, the new rules would put an undue burden on the industry—and could force companies to move operations overseas.

• Soon, manufacturers and related associations across the country began to speak out about the harm to their operations and communities, even as they affirmed the industry’s longstanding commitment to a clean, safe environment for all.

The background: The EPA’s proposed changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards—currently under review by the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs— would lower the primary annual particulate matter standard from 12.0 µg/m3 to between 8.0 and 10.0 µg/m3.

• The EPA has estimated the total cost of the controls required for compliance with the proposed standard at up to $1.8 billion—and that figure could go higher, the agency admitted.
• What’s more, some areas in the U.S. are already in “nonattainment” with the current PM2.5 standard, so a stricter standard will only put them further away from compliance and economic growth.

The costs: According to an analysis by Oxford Analytics and commissioned by the NAM, the revisions would:

• Threaten nearly $200 billion of economic activity and put up to a million current jobs at risk, both directly from manufacturing and indirectly from supply chain spending;
• In addition, growth in restricted areas may be constrained, limiting investment and expansion over the coming years; if the PM2.5 standard moves to 8 from the current 12, nearly 40% of the country will live in nonattainment areas, putting jobs and livelihoods at risk as factories may no longer be able to operate if located in an area that is in nonattainment, and no new facilities can be built to grow economic prospects; and
• Hit California’s manufacturing sector hardest, followed by Michigan and Illinois.

Speaking out: Many manufacturers from all sectors, along with related associations, have made their concerns public.

• Michael Canty, president and CEO of Alloy Precision Technologies of Mentor, Ohio, pointed out that these regulations may force companies to move production to other countries that don’t care about emissions reductions, unlike the U.S.
• Mark Biel, CEO of the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois, also worries that this regulation could make his state less attractive for manufacturers, despite its many assets.
• Dawn Crandall, executive vice president of government relations for the Home Builders Association of Michigan, decried the potential knock-on effects for Michigan’s suffering housing market.

The last word: The proposed changes “would risk jobs and livelihoods by making it even more difficult to obtain permits for new factories, facilities and infrastructure to power economic growth,” leadership from approximately 70 industry groups told White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients yesterday.

• The revisions “would also threaten successful implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and the important clean energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. … We urge you to ensure the EPA maintains the existing fine particulate matter standards to [safeguard] both continued environmental protection and economic growth.”

Washington, D.C. – Following the announcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to exempt Rule 144A debt—a type of corporate bond often issued by private companies—from its public disclosure requirements, the National Association of Manufacturers Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly released the following statement:

“This order from the SEC is a landmark victory for manufacturers and a powerful affirmation of the NAM Legal Center’s ability to rein in regulatory overreach. Our multipronged advocacy and litigation efforts, alongside the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers, forced the SEC to grapple with its complete lack of justification for applying potentially harmful public disclosure requirements on Rule 144A issuers, which would have required private businesses to disclose proprietary financial information publicly. We are thrilled that the Commission has reversed course on this unlawful attempt to impose a novel, onerous and wholly-unjustified regulatory mandate on private companies.”

“We applaud the SEC’s decision to withdraw its ill-conceived proposal and appreciate the partnership with the outstanding team at the NAM to oppose it aggressively,” said Frank Jemley, President and CEO of the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers. “American business and free enterprise are best served when government respects the boundaries of its authority, which the SEC clearly did not do in this matter.”

Background:

The SEC adopted a novel reinterpretation of SEC Rule 15c2-11, imposing the rule’s public disclosure requirements on private companies that raise capital via corporate bond issuances under SEC Rule 144A—without giving manufacturers the opportunity to provide comment on the damaging impacts of such a consequential change.

According to a recent EY economic analysis commissioned by the NAM, the SEC’s expansion of Rule 15c2-11 would have resulted in decreased liquidity and increased borrowing costs in the manufacturing industry and throughout the economy—leading to job losses exceeding 100,000 annually.

The NAM and the KAM filed petitions for rulemaking, calling on the SEC to reverse course by clarifying—either by rule or by exemptive order—that Rule 144A issuers are not required to make public financial disclosures. After the agency temporarily delayed enforcement of its novel interpretation but failed to provide complete relief, the NAM and the KAM went to court—filing a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the Commission’s actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, along with parallel actions in the 6th Circuit seeking review of the agency’s failure to grant complete relief.

-NAM- 

The National Association of Manufacturers is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs 13 million men and women, contributes $2.91 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 54% of private-sector research and development. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. For more information about the NAM or to follow us on Twitter and Facebook, please visit www.nam.org.

If you’ve ever found yourself grateful for a cold beverage on a hot day, chances are you’ve got Hoshizaki America to thank. The company was established in Los Angeles, California, in 1981 and is one of the leaders in commercial refrigeration, manufacturing refrigerators and icemakers that are used in hotels, hospitals, arenas, schools and more.

Its manufacturing facility was completed in Peachtree, Georgia, in 1986, and it proudly makes its products in America—but in recent years, that commitment has become much more costly.

The problem: Manufacturers like Hoshizaki America are meticulous in adhering to the energy and environmental standards put forth by federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. However, the increased pace of regulation and a lack of coordination between agencies are making it impossible to keep up, according to Hoshizaki America Compliance Engineer Stephen Schaefer.

• “We have many agencies that we have to talk to and be in compliance with, and right now, we’ve got a lot of things coming to a head all at the same time,” said Schaefer.
• “The Department of Energy is setting minimum energy-efficiency standards, the EPA is saying what refrigerants we’re allowed to use, and we’ve got safety standards being updated. That’s a lot of testing and evaluation.”

The timeline: It isn’t just the volume of work that needs to be done; it’s also the short timelines. Appraisals of the industry’s products used to come every six or seven years, allowing companies to develop new technologies to meet new regulations.

• But now, as different agencies offer different rules on overlapping and shorter timelines, companies are finding it impossible to research, build and test new products in time.
• “We fully agree that there are things we want to do environmentally, but there needs to be time given,” said Schaefer.

The scope: Hoshizaki isn’t alone. Schaefer is chair of the Technical Liaison Committee for the North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers, and much of the organization’s membership is experiencing the same challenge.

• According to a recent NAFEM survey of its membership, 66% of the companies indicated that their biggest challenges are the volume of regulations and cost of compliance.

The tradeoff: Schaefer argues that meeting these overlapping and pressing deadlines requires diverting funds that would otherwise be used for innovation. If companies are forced to spend more money figuring out how to meet requirements using existing products, they will have less money to spend on developing new products.

• “When different standards like this go into place, you’re taking away from ingenuity for new products and just making sure that existing products can be sold,” said Schaefer. “It becomes very tough to have newer innovation.”
• In the NAFEM survey, respondents said that if the regulatory burden was eased, they would be able to redirect funds to purchase new equipment, hire more employees, increase wages and benefits and reinvest in their manufacturing business.

The bottom line: “We want to help environmentally in every way possible—to be a good steward for energy efficiency and environmental concerns,” said Schaefer. “But we also want agencies to work together for the same goals, in a fair way that doesn’t impede ingenuity or increase the cost to the end user.”

Read more: Federal regulations are burdening manufacturers disproportionately—costing small companies an average of $50,100 per employee, according to a new NAM-commissioned study.

Large companies that do business in California will soon be required to report their greenhouse gas emissions to state regulators thanks to a new state law, according to USA Today.

What’s going on: “Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 7, SB 253 requires the California Air Resources Board to form transparency rules for companies with yearly revenues exceeding a billion dollars by 2025. The first of its kind law in the U.S. will
impact over 5,000 corporations both public and private … ”

• Under the law, by 2026 major companies will need to report the amount of carbon produced by their operations and electricity.
• By 2027 they will need to disclose “Scope 3” emissions, or those attributable to their customers and suppliers.

Why it’s important: The effects of the law on manufacturing will be ruinous and widespread, according to Conference of State Manufacturers Associations Chair and Utah Manufacturers Association President and CEO Todd Bingham.

• “Manufacturers are committed to commonsense regulations that protect consumers and the environment,” Bingham said. “California’s new law is unworkable and makes it more difficult for manufacturers to grow, invest and hire—not just in the state, but across the country.”
• COSMA members serve as the NAM’s official state partners in driving manufacturing-friendly policies at the state level.

Costly and inaccurate: “[M]anufacturers will spend millions of dollars to fulfill [SB 253]’s requirements,” Lance Hastings, president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association (an NAM state partner), said in a September statement. “The uncertainty and reliability of this data and the process required to comply with the legislation will not produce complete, accurate or comparable disclosures.”

• Last month, the CMTA submitted a request for veto of the California law to Gov. Newsom.

The SEC: The California measure follows the September finalization of a similar rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission that “require[es] publicly traded companies to disclose their emissions and climate-related risks to investors.”

• The rule—which the NAM has been actively working against—not only requires numerous unfeasible moves, but also imposes significant financial burdens on manufacturers, the NAM has said.

What should be done: “We hope California’s devastating policy is reversed and are grateful for the NAM’s coordinating efforts against regulatory overreach at the national level,” Bingham continued.
 

The Federal Communications Commission voted late last week to advance a proposal that would reinstate Obama-era net neutrality rules, according to The New York Times (subscription).

What’s going on: “The commissioners at the Democratic-led agency voted 3 to 2 along party lines to kick off a monthslong process to bring back so-called net neutrality regulations.”

• In an NAM-supported move in 2018, the previous administration repealed net neutrality regulations put into place by President Obama in 2015, saying they stymied innovation.

Why it’s important: Last week’s proposal—which telecommunications companies have pledged to fight—“will ultimately enable the agency to categorize high-speed internet as a utility, like water or electricity. … The agency will then be able to police broadband providers for net neutrality violations.”

• That’s precisely why the proposal to restore the rules is problematic, critics say. A trade group representing telecom firms “wrote letters this week to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees warning of ‘mission creep’ by the F.C.C.”
• In 2017, then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said net neutrality laws amounted to “special interests [who] weren’t trying to solve a real problem but [were] instead looking for an excuse to achieve their longstanding goal of forcing the Internet under the federal government’s control.”

Government overreach: Indeed, the 2015 net neutrality rules—very similar to the ones now being advanced—were a prime example of agency overreach, said NAM Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly in 2018.

• The 2015 FCC’s “heavy-handed approach … was neither appropriate nor necessary for the rapidly evolving, highly competitive broadband market,” Kelly said.
• Net neutrality laws also decrease investment in broadband, the NAM has told policymakers.

Up next: The FCC will take public comments on the proposed rules. The commission could vote to adopt new regulations as soon as early next year.

The last word: “Manufacturers are disappointed the FCC is moving forward with its proposal to regulate 21st-century broadband with rules designed for the era of the rotary phone,” said NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Charles Crain. “Reinstating this misguided, overreaching policy of the past is a recipe for stymied innovation and outdated infrastructure.”

Hydrogen demand is likely to skyrocket in the next few decades—if permitting delays and other setbacks don’t stymie it, according to WSJ Pro (subscription).

What’s going on: “A new report from consulting firm McKinsey forecasts a fivefold rise in hydrogen demand to 600 million metric tons a year by 2050, if climate change is limited to 1.5 degree Celsius. On current trajectories, however, that supply could be between 175 million to 291 million metric tons a year if steps aren’t taken to speed up permitting and lower both equipment and investment costs, the report warned.”

• The report identified three major challenges to meeting the rising demand: increased costs, a slow permitting process and “lack of access to capital,” which can be attributed largely to higher interest rates.

Incentives abound: Government incentives for hydrogen are on the rise. Up to $300 billion has been made available worldwide for hydrogen-energy projects this year, a sixfold increase from 2021.

• Last week, the Energy Department announced $7 billion in subsidies to create seven clean-hydrogen “hubs” in the U.S.

More support required: More action from government is still needed—particularly when it comes to allowing hydrogen projects to proceed.

• “Faster permitting times are needed to bring more hydrogen projects online, as well as the renewable energy to power their electrolyzers, industry experts say. A recent report from the International Energy Agency said current project lead times are too long and can act as a barrier to clean hydrogen uptake.”

What we’re doing: Manufacturers have long been urging policymakers to fix the broken U.S. permitting system.

• The NAM recently laid out a multistep plan for Congress “to modernize and update our nation’s antiquated permitting system.”

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, businesses must keep up with all of the requirements and restrictions relating to chemical substances. Although manufacturers fulfill their obligations with the utmost care, the Environmental Protection Agency isn’t keeping up its end of the bargain.

Dr. Alan Dyke is the chief technology officer at Boulder Scientific Company—a specialty chemical company based in Mead, Colorado—and a member of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates. In his opinion, the EPA must change its approach if manufacturers in the U.S. are to remain competitive.

The company: Serving clients in many sectors, from pharmaceuticals to defense and aerospace, Boulder Scientific makes a number of complex and unique catalysts and compounds. The company proudly keeps all their manufacturing processes inside the United States.

• “We work with an end user to produce materials inside America with the right level of safety and quality, and to make those materials available for them within American borders,” Dyke explained. “We don’t outsource any manufacturing outside the U.S.”

The challenge: The EPA continues to miss congressionally mandated deadlines to review and approve compounds, creating havoc in an industry dependent on clockwork efficiency.

• “We’ve encountered delays because of the time it takes to file a document, the variability of response times from the EPA and the sheer number of documents we have to file,” said Dyke.
• At the same time, the EPA is imposing more regulations on chemical manufacturers that are difficult to navigate or confusing.
• “To make one of our compounds might take 10 different chemical intermediates from the first raw materials through to the end product,” he explained. “Each one of those materials requires a filing for each one of those compounds. And if any one of those steps is not approved, it interrupts our delivery process.”

The impact: These problems don’t just affect chemical manufacturers; they also cause problems throughout the supply chain and for customers and end users, who are forced to wait through a series of unpredictable delays.

• “During the past two years, we’ve seen a level of frustration building at the end-user level,” said Dyke. “Customers are considering sourcing from other countries where the system is more predictable and they won’t have to face these delays.”

The NAM, members of the NAM’s Council of Manufacturing Associations and Conference of State Manufacturers Associations recently launched Manufacturers for Sensible Regulations, a coalition addressing the impact of the current regulatory onslaught coming from federal agencies. To learn more, and get involved, go here.
Read the full story here.
 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, businesses must keep up with all of the requirements and restrictions relating to chemical substances. Although manufacturers fulfill their obligations with the utmost care, the Environmental Protection Agency isn’t keeping up its end of the bargain.

Alan Dyke, Ph.D. is the chief technology officer at Boulder Scientific Company—a specialty chemical company based in Mead, Colorado—and a member of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates. In his opinion, the EPA must change its approach if manufacturers in the U.S. are to remain competitive.

The company: Serving clients in many sectors, from pharmaceuticals to defense and aerospace, Boulder Scientific makes a number of complex and unique catalysts and compounds. The company proudly keeps all their manufacturing processes inside the United States.

• “We work with an end user to produce materials inside America with the right level of safety and quality, and to make those materials available for them within American borders,” Dyke explained. “We don’t outsource any manufacturing outside the U.S.”

The challenge: The EPA continues to miss congressionally mandated deadlines to review and approve compounds, creating havoc in an industry dependent on clockwork efficiency.

• “We’ve encountered delays because of the time it takes to file a document, the variability of response times from the EPA and the sheer number of documents we have to file,” said Dyke.
• At the same time, the EPA is imposing more regulations on chemical manufacturers that are difficult to navigate or confusing.
• “To make one of our compounds might take 10 different chemical intermediates from the first raw materials through to the end product,” he explained. “Each one of those materials requires a filing for each one of those compounds. And if any one of those steps is not approved, it interrupts our delivery process.”

The impact: These problems don’t just affect chemical manufacturers; they also cause problems throughout the supply chain and for customers and end users, who are forced to wait through a series of unpredictable delays.

• “During the past two years, we’ve seen a level of frustration building at the end-user level,” said Dyke. “Customers are considering sourcing from other countries where the system is more predictable and they won’t have to face these delays.”

The next step: Should the EPA fail to correct its course, even businesses dedicated to remaining in the U.S. may reach a breaking point, Dyke cautioned.

• “We are considering sourcing raw materials and advanced intermediates in other countries—and even establishing manufacturing in other countries—because registration and filing is easier in other places,” he said.
• “And that’s really concerning, because if we’re thinking about doing things outside the United States, then I can guarantee a number of SOCMA members are thinking similarly.”

The CHIPS effect: Even as the U.S. government encourages companies to manufacture semiconductor chips in the United States through the CHIPS Act, the EPA’s delays are making it harder to fulfill critical goals. Boulder Scientific, which does significant business with the chips industry, is caught up in this bottleneck.

• “The frustration from the folks who are buying those materials from us is that the incentive to support the CHIPS Act is strong, whereas the current EPA filing process is not efficient—and so there’s a mismatch,” said Dyke. “We’re not able to perform the way we would want to in support of that government incentive.”

The last word: “Manufacturers are facing an onslaught of environmental regulations like we have never seen before,” said NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Brandon Farris. “The industry supports commonsense regulations that contribute to a healthy environment but don’t prevent manufacturers from creating the products that make modern life possible.”

The NAM, members of the NAM’s Council of Manufacturing Associations and Conference of State Manufacturers Associations recently launched Manufacturers for Sensible Regulations, a coalition addressing the impact of the current regulatory onslaught coming from federal agencies. To learn more, and get involved, go here.

The NAM is pushing back on proposed changes by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice that would expand filing requirements drastically for companies considering mergers, harming manufacturers of all sizes.

What’s going on: In June, the FTC—with the agreement of the Antitrust Division of the DOJ—announced an overhaul of the premerger notification rules under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.

• The HSR Act requires companies to provide notice to the FTC prior to consummating a merger, but the FTC’s proposed changes would lead to as much as a sevenfold increase in the time it takes to file the HSR form, according to the proposal.
• The proposed amendments would also necessitate complex and lengthy information reporting, as well as significantly enhanced document production—resulting in disclosure overload for companies pursuing mergers or acquisitions.

Why it matters: M&A activity is critical to the manufacturing industry. Larger businesses use M&A for efficiency and expansion, while smaller companies benefit from opportunities for capital formation and growth.

• The burdensome nature of the FTC’s proposal could disincentivize or delay promising, pro-consumer deals.

Manufacturers speak out: Last week, the NAM urged the FTC to withdraw the proposed changes to “protect businesses’ ability to grow and drive economic expansion in the United States.”

• The proposal would result in significant costs and delays for manufacturers, “stifl[ing] job-creating growth in the manufacturing industry without any corresponding benefit to the agencies, merging parties or the public,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Charles Crain told the FTC.
• “If adopted, the proposal would dramatically increase the information that merging entities would be required to provide to the agencies before consummating a transaction … postponing the opportunities and job-creating investments that these transactions can create,” he added.