Regulatory and Legal Reform

Washington, D.C. – Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency, National Association of Manufacturers Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Brandon Farris released the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision today will help put us on a path to regulatory certainty for manufacturers across the country as all the justices agreed that the EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act. Manufacturers are committed to keeping our waters clean and demonstrating environmental stewardship, but Clean Water Act enforcement has been rife with ambiguities and inconsistencies, often allowing the EPA to overreach and attempt to regulate water—and even dry land—that is far beyond the scope of the law. This case demonstrates yet again why manufacturers and our economy need a sensible Waters of the United States proposal that provides clarity and certainty and allows the industry to continue leading the way on environmental protection. The EPA should heed the court’s ruling and revise its latest WOTUS proposal.”

Background:

Previously, the NAM submitted multiple sets of comments regarding the 2015 WOTUS rule to better inform policymakers. In addition, the NAM supported the 2017 executive order instructing the EPA to rescind the rule, and the NAM Legal Center had been in active litigation against the rule starting in 2015. The legal battle included a unanimous victory for the NAM at the U.S. Supreme Court on a key procedural issue, and in 2019, federal judges invalidated the rule.

-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 nearly 13 million men and women, contributes $2.90 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 55% 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.

Washington, D.C. – Today, the National Association of Manufacturers filed a motion to intervene in National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC, a case about the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority to dictate the content of public company proxy ballots and the topics on which shareholders are required to cast votes. If granted intervenor status, the NAM will argue that the SEC’s rules requiring companies to include activist proposals on the proxy ballot violate federal securities law and the First Amendment. Following the filing of the motion to intervene, NAM Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly released the following statement:

“Manufacturers are facing an onslaught of activists seeking to hijack the proxy ballot to advance narrow political agendas, and the SEC has become a willing partner in the effort. The corporate proxy ballot is not the appropriate venue for policy decisions better made by America’s elected representatives, and manufacturers are regularly caught in the middle as activists on the left and the right bring fights from the political arena into the boardroom. The NAM Legal Center is standing up for manufacturers to ensure they can focus on growing their businesses, driving economic expansion and job creation and creating value for shareholders.”

Background:

• Under SEC Rule 14a-8, public companies are required to include most shareholder proposals on their proxy ballot—proposals that in recent years have skewed increasingly toward social or political topics unrelated from a company’s business and its long-term value.
• The SEC evaluates company requests to exclude certain proposals from the ballot and increasingly requires companies to include and take a position on these proposals. For example, the NAM strongly opposed recent SEC guidance preventing companies from excluding proposals on environmental, social and governance topics of “broad societal impact”—irrespective of whether the proposal has any connection to the company’s operations.
• As intervenor in National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC, the NAM would argue that the SEC cannot compel corporate speech, in violation of the First Amendment and federal securities laws, by forcing companies to include activist proposals on their proxy ballots.

-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 nearly 13 million men and women, contributes $2.90 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 55% 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.

Update: The National Association of Manufacturers has called on congressional leadership to support and advance legislation aimed at reforming the pharmacy benefit manager market in a later dated November 7th. Click here to read the letter. Click here to take action.

Pharmacy benefit managers—companies that were first established to manage the cost of prescription drugs—are contributing to soaring health care costs and driving up the price of medications. These entities cannot go unchecked, and Congress must act, an NAM ad campaign launched Thursday is advocating.

What’s going on: The campaign, which includes both TV and digital ads, calls out PBMs—“middlemen owned by large health insurers”—for pocketing sizeable discounts from drug manufacturers rather than passing on the discounts or rebates to workers or employers.

• “America’s manufacturing workforce has struggled with skyrocketing health care costs driven by insurer-owned PBM middlemen for far too long,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons.
• “Manufacturers are committed to providing quality health care benefits to our employees, so we need reforms to stop insurer-owned PBMs from keeping discounts and driving up prescription drug costs.”

Why it’s important: PBMs emerged in the late 1960s as a way of helping insurance companies and employers contain spending on prescription medications—but their business model has evolved significantly in the past half-century.

• Now just a few PBMs—subsidiaries of bigger health care firms—control up to 89% of the prescription drug market and operate with limited federal oversight.
• And they exert even more control in the industry by steering business toward specific pharmacy networks, frequently ones owned by their parent companies.

Congressional moves: Congress is considering various legislative solutions to address PBM rebate, fee and payment structures.

The last word: “Manufacturers support reforms to the PBM model that increase transparency, ensure pharmaceutical savings are passed from the PBM to workers and plan sponsors and delink PBM compensation from the list price of medication,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “Congress must reform the PBM system so employers can negotiate, compete and achieve profit savings.”

NAM in the news: POLITICO’s Influence newsletter highlighted the NAM’s campaign.

Tell Congress To Reform PBM’s Today

Washington, D.C. –  A new report conducted by Oxford Economics and commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers warns that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed air quality regulations for particulate matter (PM2.5) are projected to threaten $162.4 billion to $197.4 billion of economic activity and put 852,100 to 973,900 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. Due to these limited opportunities for expansion or investment, these areas in nonattainment could lose out on an additional $138.4 billion in output and 501,000 jobs through 2027.

Overall, the regulations could make it extraordinarily difficult to create new manufacturing jobs and protect existing manufacturing jobs in areas out of attainment. The regulations could also prevent much needed infrastructure improvements in these areas. This is because compliance with the regulations could require restricting manufacturing operations, resulting in fewer jobs, less investment and higher costs for consumers and families.

“Improving air quality in the U.S. is a top priority for manufacturers, and we’ve worked for years to make progress in delivering some of the cleanest manufacturing processes in the world,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “This analysis makes clear these new regulations will weaken our ability to invest in the technology and processes that would continue to reduce emissions—while jeopardizing high-paying manufacturing jobs. We need to let manufacturers do what they do best: innovate and deploy modern technologies to protect the environment, while creating jobs and strengthening the economy.”

Key Findings:

• The regulations create a total economic exposure of $87.4 billion for manufacturing economic activity, equal to 2.4% of the U.S. manufacturing sector’s gross value added.
• The number of manufacturing jobs associated with this exposed activity is 311,600, or 1.9% of all U.S. manufacturing employment.
• Manufacturing in the U.S. exposed to the proposed standard supports between $75 billion and $110 billion in GDP and between 540,500 and 662,300 jobs in the U.S. through supply chain spending.
• Due to limits on expansion and investment, the proposed rule would put at risk approximately $138.4 billion of gross value added (in 2021 prices) and 501,000 jobs in 2027 in areas of nonattainment.
• Under the proposed rule, 200 counties could be placed out of attainment.
• California’s manufacturing sector will be most exposed, followed by Michigan and Illinois.
• Manufacturing operations in the U.S. are environmentally cleaner than the global average.

Find the latest information on the NAM’s efforts to oppose top-down air regulations, including statements from manufacturing leaders, here.

-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 nearly 13 million men and women, contributes $2.90 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 55% 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.

An aggressive climate-disclosure rule proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission hasn’t yet become law, but many companies are already adopting climate-disclosure practices and methodologies, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription).

• Companies’ efforts to adopt climate strategies appropriate for their businesses, as well as the evolving methodologies for such reporting, are clear indications that the SEC’s costly and overly restrictive climate-reporting mandate is not necessary, said NAM Senior Director of Tax and Domestic Economic Policy Charles Crain.

What’s going on: “The Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule—which would require public companies to report climate-related risks and emissions data, including so-called Scope 3 emissions that come from a company’s supply chain—is expected to be brought in soon. … [But] [s]ome businesses have for years pursued carbon-related goals without the government forcing their hand,” according to the Journal.

• Manufacturers have led the move toward sustainability, with many having already begun to track and curb their emissions and work with their suppliers to do the same.

Why it’s important: “[G]roups from private manufacturers to egg farmers have balked at the cost and complexity of complying with a Scope 3 mandate from the SEC. The regulator has estimated its plan will raise the cost to businesses of complying with its overall disclosure rules to $10.2 billion from $3.9 billion, an additional cost of about $530,000 a year for a bigger business.”

• Manufacturers have urged the SEC to drop the Scope 3 reporting mandate. Some say it unfairly “creates a risk of double counting, because the supply-chain emissions of one company are the in-house emissions of another,” according to the Journal.
• While SEC Chair Gary Gensler told the House Committee on Financial Services earlier this month that the rule is not intended to burden private companies, “[m]andatory Scope 3 reporting would represent a costly, uncertain and ultimately infeasible standard for public issuers as well as the small and privately held businesses within their supply chains,” NAM Managing Vice President of Tax and Domestic Economic Policy Chris Netram told the same committee.

The last word: “Manufacturers [are] leaders in combatting climate change and making the necessary disclosures about this important work,” said Crain.

• “The SEC’s attempt to mandate a top-down, uniform approach to this evolving field would dramatically increase costs and legal liability for manufacturers—without improving information availability for investors or helping companies achieve their sustainability goals.”                          

The future of the Biden administration’s too-stringent rule governing the “waters of the United States” remains unclear following the president’s veto of legislation that would have overturned it, according to E&E News’ GREENWIRE (subscription).

What’s going on: “Republican lawmakers pushed almost immediately for a veto override targeting the…WOTUS rule on Thursday in the hours after President Joe Biden nixed a resolution that would roll it back.”

• A Republican-led measure in the House and Senate using the Congressional Review Act to block the overly restrictive WOTUS rule passed both chambers of Congress last month.
• House Republicans say they will push for a veto override.

Why it’s important: The Biden administration’s version of the rule replaced NAM-backed regulations from the previous administration.

The background: The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision this year on Sackett v. EPA, a case brought by an Idaho couple who have been blocked from building a house on their land for more than 15 years after the Environmental Protection Agency said part of the property was a wetlands.  

• The NAM and many GOP congressional leaders previously urged the administration to await the ruling on this case before releasing a final WOTUS rule.
• Issuing a new rule prior to a Sackett v. EPA decision only confuses things for manufacturers, making hiring and investment more difficult, NAM Senior Vice President of Policy and Government Relations Aric Newhouse said in December, following the release of the new rule.

What’s next: While “the fate of WOTUS remains murky as ever,” according to the article, several states have frozen the new rule.

• “Texas and Idaho secured an injunction on March 20, the day WOTUS took effect in the rest of the country. Those states are now subject to 1986 regulations, while the other 48 states are operating under the Biden administration’s definition—a split that has left the regulated community baffled as to how to operate nationally.”

The NAM says: “By vetoing the bipartisan Congressional Review Act on the WOTUS rule, the president removed an item that manufacturers greatly desire: regulatory certainty,” said NAM Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Brandon Farris.

• “While the country awaits the decision in Sackett v. EPA, numerous investments in much-needed energy and infrastructure projects may be put on hold due to confusion over the new definition and potential added costs of compliance.”

The NAM continues to push back against proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter.

What’s going on: On Tuesday NAM Director of Energy and Resources Policy Chris Morris urged the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its recent proposal to lower the primary annual particulate matter standard from 12.0 µg/m3 to between 8.0 and 10.0 µg/m3.

The big picture: “Manufacturers in the U.S. have become leaders in environmental stewardship and sustainability,” Morris pointed out.

• “Across the board, levels of major pollutants have declined dramatically, and the United States is outpacing our global competitors in air quality improvements,” he said.
• “According to the EPA, the U.S. has reduced six common NAAQS pollutants, including PM₅, by 78% between 1970 and 2020. Additionally, the EPA data show that PM_2.5 air quality has improved 43% between 2000 and 2020.”

The new regulations: The EPA’s new standards would impose a substantial economic burden on manufacturers, Morris continued.

• “First, there is the direct economic exposure manufacturers will face, which is a measure of the gross value added or employment in the manufacturing sector that could be affected or [placed] at risk,” he said.
• “Second is the indirect economic exposure of manufacturing as a result of a stricter PM₅ standard. This refers to the effects on the sector as the consequences are felt throughout the supply chain due to decreased overall investment.”

By the numbers: 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.

• This expensive policy will lead to job losses and fewer new manufacturing facilities, as well as fewer modernizations and expansions to existing facilities, Morris continued.

Unattainable standards: What’s more, some areas in the U.S. are “in non-attainment” with the current PM_2.5 standard, so a stricter standard will only put them further out of compliance, Morris told the EPA.

What should be done: To keep U.S. manufacturing competitive and to safeguard well-paying jobs, Morris said, the EPA should maintain the current annual particulate-matter standard of 12.0 µg/m3 and withdraw its proposal. 

The NAM in action: The NAM has been rallying manufacturers across the country to speak out against the EPA’s proposal and calling on Congress to oppose these harmful regulations.

• During the 2023 State of Manufacturing address last month, Timmons announced the launch of a nationwide campaign to maintain these standards in order to protect manufacturers.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed the first federal limits on two chemical compounds that were used widely in everyday products for decades, The Wall Street Journal (subscription) reports.

What’s going on: “The agency is proposing maximum allowable levels in the nation’s public drinking-water systems for two compounds in a class of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which were used for decades in carpeting, clothing, food packaging, firefighting foam and other consumer and industrial products. The EPA also said it would regulate four other PFAS chemicals by requiring treatment if the combined level reaches a certain concentration.”

• The suggested limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act are part of a larger move by the EPA to tighten rules around “forever chemicals”—so known because they take years to break down—owing to “a growing number of studies [that] have shown links to a variety of cancers, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and other issues.”
• The two individual chemicals under discussion are known as PFOA and PFOS, which various industries began using in the 1940s for their ability to resist grease, corrosion, water and stains, as well as to douse fires.

Why it’s important: While the EPA says the change would prevent numerous deaths and illnesses, not everyone is assured of the soundness of the science behind it—and others say it would cost companies unnecessarily.

• Critics of the new proposed standard say the chemicals are still necessary components of numerous products, from cell phones to medical devices, and there are no viable alternatives. Moreover, when used correctly, PFAS compounds do not pose a significant health risk to humans or the environment, they say.
• One source told the Journal the new limits “would cost water systems $40 billion” in compliance-related spending.

 Our take: “Everyone deserves access to clean drinking water, and manufacturers continue to do their part to ensure we achieve the highest levels of environmental stewardship,” said NAM Director of Energy and Resources Policy Chris Morris.

• “Manufacturers in America are committed to the communities in which they live and serve and are dedicated to protecting the health, safety and vibrancy of those communities. The EPA’s proposal leaves many questions unanswered on the feasibility of meeting these new standards and the economic impacts this will have on communities, especially rural communities and consumers. The NAM looks forward to continuing to work with the EPA to ensure everyone has access to clean drinking water.”

Manufacturers across the United States have long been leading the way on sustainability. From outpacing international competitors on emission reductions to making investments in clean technologies, the industry has implemented best practices for others to use and blazed a trail for them to follow.

NAM Director of Energy and Resources Policy Chris Morris emphasized manufacturers’ track record during a hearing before the Environmental Protection Agency last week, where he explained to policymakers that their proposed air quality rules would stifle rather than enhance manufacturers’ efforts. Here’s what he had to say.

A record of leadership: “Our industry has championed environmental stewardship at every turn, and our members have invested heavily in new processes and technologies that have made manufacturing in the U.S. cleaner and more sustainable than ever,” said Morris.

• “This innovation in the manufacturing sector has played a key role in the reduction of air pollution we have seen over the last 50 years.”

Manufacturers’ impact: “Across the board, levels of major pollutants have declined dramatically, and we are outpacing our global competitors in air quality improvements,” said Morris.

• “According to the EPA, the U.S. has reduced six common NAAQS pollutants, including PM2.5, by 78% between 1970 and 2020.”
• “Additionally, EPA data shows that PM2.5 air quality has improved 44% since 2000. Manufacturers are committed to ensuring that progress continues.”

The challenge: New proposed regulations from the EPA would have a number of negative effects, Morris noted.

• Tighter air quality standards would make permitting more difficult, raise compliance costs and make it harder for manufacturers in the United States to compete with companies abroad—especially at a time when manufacturers are concerned about the country’s economic outlook.

The path forward: Morris urged policymakers to ensure that current regulations are fully implemented before they propose new ones, and to work together with innovative manufacturers on smart solutions.

• “The U.S. has some of the best environmental standards in the world, and American manufacturers are consistently reducing emissions, conserving critical resources, protecting biodiversity, limiting waste and providing safe products and solutions so others in our country can do the same,” said Morris.
• “But in order to maintain our environmental leadership, we need better regulations.”

The last word: “In our view, environmental protection and a thriving economy are not mutually exclusive,” said Morris. “We can have both—but it requires working together toward a constructive solution. Manufacturers are committed to smart, strong environmental safeguards and improving the lives of all Americans so that no one—and no community—is left behind.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s recently issued rule governing regulation of “navigable waters” is unnecessary, confusing and inconsistent—and the NAM stands ready to work with Congress to overturn it.

The background: In December, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced the new regulation, which repealed the Navigable Waters Protection Rule and altered the definition of “Waters of the United States.”

• This month, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) introduced a joint resolution of disapproval of the rule under the Congressional Review Act. An identical measure was introduced in the Senate.
• The NAM this week hailed the congressional moves. “Manufacturers welcome action from Congress to challenge the EPA’s proposed WOTUS Rule,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons.

What’s going on now: Ahead of a Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing Wednesday, NAM Senior Director of Energy and Resources Policy Nile Elam urged the “educat[ion of] the public and policy stakeholders regarding the immense permitting regulatory efforts necessary under local and state jurisdictions, and the need for a complementary WOTUS rule that advances permitting protections at the federal level while providing certainty for the regulated community.”

• Though many Supreme Court decisions have “touched on” the definition of navigable waters, neither the court nor the EPA has clarified sufficiently, Elam told Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Rouzer (R-NC) and Ranking Member Grace Napolitano (D-CA).
• The new rule also “expands federal jurisdiction beyond traditional navigable waters,” Elam said. “Because of these expansions and ambiguous terms, the careful balance between local and state regulators is unpredictable and can leave permit seekers with little guidance, aside from the need for more time and money to achieve their permitting requests.”

What should come next: Congress must work with stakeholders, the EPA and the Corps on creating clear, predictable and common-sense WOTUS regulations, Elam told the committee. Doing so will “enhanc[e] manufacturers’ ability to deliver their goods, expand their operations and grow their workforce.”