By SEMA Washington, D.C., Staff

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is seeking public feedback on the effectiveness of current state- and employer-provided paid leave programs, and how access or lack of access to paid leave programs impacts America’s workers and their families. Paid leave refers to paid family and medical leave to care for family members, or for one’s own health. The information gathered is intended to help the DOL identify promising practices related to eligibility requirements, related costs and administrative models for the existing paid leave programs.

Find out more information. Comments due September 14, 2020.  

The DOL is also gathering information on the effectiveness of its current regulations for implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The DOL’s effort is part of a regular review to explore whether its regulations have remained current with evolving workplace and demographic changes. The intent is to make sure that the DOL is providing comprehensive compliance assistance to employers and workers. For example, the DOL seeks input from employers and employees on the current FMLA regulations, specifically: what would employers and workers like to see changed in the FMLA regulations to better effectuate the rights and obligations under the FMLA?

Find out more information. Comments due September 15, 2020.

Questions? Stuart Gosswein at stuartg@sema.org.

By SEMA Washington, D.C., Staff

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is proposing to consolidate its longstanding policy on enforcing unqualified “Made in USA” claims within a regulation (Part 323—Made in USA Labeling), making it easier for businesses to understand the requirements.

Since at least 1940, the FTC has used its general legal authority to enforce against unfair or deceptive trade practices regarding unqualified Made in USA claims. It has provided broad guidance, most recently in December 1997, that requires a seller making an unqualified Made in USA claim to have a reasonable basis for asserting that “all or virtually all” of the product is made in the United States.

The FTC policy is based on the principle that an unqualified Made in USA claim implies no more than a de minimis amount of product is of foreign origin. The agency prohibits unqualified claims unless: (1) final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, (2) all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and (3) all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.

Companies may still make qualified Made in USA claims for products that include U.S. content or processing but do not meet the criteria for making an unqualified claim. Examples of qualified claims include: “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts.” “75% U.S. content.”  “Assembled in U.S.A.”

The FTC rule would not supersede or affect any other federal or state rule that is consistent or would provide greater protection. For example, California allows a “Made in U.S.A.” label for products sold in California if the product is made in the United States and all its subcomponents that are sourced from outside the United States constitute no more than 5% of the final value of the manufactured product. The labels may also be used if the subcomponents cannot be obtained in the United States and all subcomponents sourced from outside the United States make up no more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.

Find out more information. Comments due September 14, 2020.

For more information, contact Stuart Gosswein at stuartg@sema.org.

By SEMA Washington, D.C., Staff

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is proposing to consolidate its longstanding policy on enforcing unqualified “Made in USA” claims within a regulation (Part 323—Made in USA Labeling), making it easier for businesses to understand the requirements.

Since at least 1940, the FTC has used its general legal authority to enforce against unfair or deceptive trade practices regarding unqualified Made in USA claims. It has provided broad guidance, most recently in December 1997, that requires a seller making an unqualified Made in USA claim to have a reasonable basis for asserting that “all or virtually all” of the product is made in the United States.

The FTC policy is based on the principle that an unqualified Made in USA claim implies no more than a de minimis amount of product is of foreign origin. The agency prohibits unqualified claims unless: (1) final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, (2) all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and (3) all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.

Companies may still make qualified Made in USA claims for products that include U.S. content or processing but do not meet the criteria for making an unqualified claim. Examples of qualified claims include: “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts.” “75% U.S. content.”  “Assembled in U.S.A.”

The FTC rule would not supersede or affect any other federal or state rule that is consistent or would provide greater protection. For example, California allows a “Made in U.S.A.” label for products sold in California if the product is made in the United States and all its subcomponents that are sourced from outside the United States constitute no more than 5% of the final value of the manufactured product. The labels may also be used if the subcomponents cannot be obtained in the United States and all subcomponents sourced from outside the United States make up no more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.

Find out more information. Comments due September 14, 2020.

For more information, contact Stuart Gosswein at stuartg@sema.org.

By SEMA Washington, D.C., Staff

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is proposing to consolidate its longstanding policy on enforcing unqualified “Made in USA” claims within a regulation (Part 323—Made in USA Labeling), making it easier for businesses to understand the requirements.

Since at least 1940, the FTC has used its general legal authority to enforce against unfair or deceptive trade practices regarding unqualified Made in USA claims. It has provided broad guidance, most recently in December 1997, that requires a seller making an unqualified Made in USA claim to have a reasonable basis for asserting that “all or virtually all” of the product is made in the United States.

The FTC policy is based on the principle that an unqualified Made in USA claim implies no more than a de minimis amount of product is of foreign origin. The agency prohibits unqualified claims unless: (1) final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, (2) all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and (3) all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.

Companies may still make qualified Made in USA claims for products that include U.S. content or processing but do not meet the criteria for making an unqualified claim. Examples of qualified claims include: “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts.” “75% U.S. content.”  “Assembled in U.S.A.”

The FTC rule would not supersede or affect any other federal or state rule that is consistent or would provide greater protection. For example, California allows a “Made in U.S.A.” label for products sold in California if the product is made in the United States and all its subcomponents that are sourced from outside the United States constitute no more than 5% of the final value of the manufactured product. The labels may also be used if the subcomponents cannot be obtained in the United States and all subcomponents sourced from outside the United States make up no more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.

Find out more information. Comments due September 14, 2020.

For more information, contact Stuart Gosswein at stuartg@sema.org.

By SEMA Washington, D.C., Staff

The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed two SEMA-supported bills that make it easier for Congress to prevent overly burdensome regulations from becoming law. The “Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act,” S. 92, would require Congress to approve economically significant regulations, including those that have a $100 million impact or greater on the economy, before they can take effect. The committee also passed the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act,” S. 4077, which provides business with a stronger voice in shaping the regulatory process and would require agencies to pursue less burdensome regulatory alternatives. Both bills will now be eligible for consideration on the U.S. Senate floor. Below is additional information on each bill:

The "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act” would establish a congressional approval process for economically significant rulemakings from the Executive Branch, ensuring that the following types of rules must be approved by Congress before they take effect:

• Rules with an annual economic impact of more than $100 million.
• Those that will result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions.
• Rules with significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

The Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act would:

• Strengthen regulatory impact analyses under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) by requiring agencies to assess how the regulations they issue impact jobs and consider alternatives to agency rules.
• Require agencies to allow public input earlier in the rulemaking process to develop alternatives.
• Require agencies to choose the alternative that maximizes net benefits, unless the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator approves another option that accounts for unquantifiable costs or benefits.
• Extend the analytical requirements of UMRA to independent agencies.
• Apply the UMRA requirements to rules that impose mandates on private sector employers.
• Allow for meaningful judicial review of all agencies’ compliance with UMRA requirements.

For more information, contact Eric Snyder at erics@sema.org.

By SEMA Washington, D.C., Staff

The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed two SEMA-supported bills that make it easier for Congress to prevent overly burdensome regulations from becoming law. The “Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act,” S. 92, would require Congress to approve economically significant regulations, including those that have a $100 million impact or greater on the economy, before they can take effect. The committee also passed the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act,” S. 4077, which provides business with a stronger voice in shaping the regulatory process and would require agencies to pursue less burdensome regulatory alternatives. Both bills will now be eligible for consideration on the U.S. Senate floor. Below is additional information on each bill:

The "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act” would establish a congressional approval process for economically significant rulemakings from the Executive Branch, ensuring that the following types of rules must be approved by Congress before they take effect:

• Rules with an annual economic impact of more than $100 million.
• Those that will result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions.
• Rules with significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

The Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act would:

• Strengthen regulatory impact analyses under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) by requiring agencies to assess how the regulations they issue impact jobs and consider alternatives to agency rules.
• Require agencies to allow public input earlier in the rulemaking process to develop alternatives.
• Require agencies to choose the alternative that maximizes net benefits, unless the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator approves another option that accounts for unquantifiable costs or benefits.
• Extend the analytical requirements of UMRA to independent agencies.
• Apply the UMRA requirements to rules that impose mandates on private sector employers.
• Allow for meaningful judicial review of all agencies’ compliance with UMRA requirements.

For more information, contact Eric Snyder at erics@sema.org.

By SEMA Washington, D.C., Staff

The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed two SEMA-supported bills that make it easier for Congress to prevent overly burdensome regulations from becoming law. The “Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act,” S. 92, would require Congress to approve economically significant regulations, including those that have a $100 million impact or greater on the economy, before they can take effect. The committee also passed the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act,” S. 4077, which provides business with a stronger voice in shaping the regulatory process and would require agencies to pursue less burdensome regulatory alternatives. Both bills will now be eligible for consideration on the U.S. Senate floor. Below is additional information on each bill:

The "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act” would establish a congressional approval process for economically significant rulemakings from the Executive Branch, ensuring that the following types of rules must be approved by Congress before they take effect:

• Rules with an annual economic impact of more than $100 million.
• Those that will result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions.
• Rules with significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

The Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act would:

• Strengthen regulatory impact analyses under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) by requiring agencies to assess how the regulations they issue impact jobs and consider alternatives to agency rules.
• Require agencies to allow public input earlier in the rulemaking process to develop alternatives.
• Require agencies to choose the alternative that maximizes net benefits, unless the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator approves another option that accounts for unquantifiable costs or benefits.
• Extend the analytical requirements of UMRA to independent agencies.
• Apply the UMRA requirements to rules that impose mandates on private sector employers.
• Allow for meaningful judicial review of all agencies’ compliance with UMRA requirements.

For more information, contact Eric Snyder at erics@sema.org.

Compiled by SEMA Editors

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), H.R. 1957, a bill that is critically important to revitalizing America’s outdoor recreation industry. The GAOA would dedicate $9.5 billion over the next five years to address the maintenance backlog on federally owned lands by creating a national parks and public land legacy restoration fund. The bill would also appropriate $900 million annually to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which allocates funding to protect natural areas, water resources, cultural heritage sites and to provide recreation opportunities. The SEMA-supported legislation is critical to addressing the infrastructure needs facing our public lands and waters, such as improving trails, roads, docks, campgrounds and more. The U.S. Senate passed the GAOA in June, which now heads to President Trump’s desk for his signature.  

The GAOA will benefit many SEMA members in the off-road market (four-wheel, ATVs and UTVs) in addition to companies producing and selling wheels/tires, suspension, power and other equipment to help tow RVs and boats to the nation’s parks and recreation areas. SEMA and 30 other national associations that comprise the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR) advocated for Congress to pass the GAOA and commend members for passing it with such strong bipartisan support. The bill addresses infrastructure needs of our public lands, creates jobs, and will provide Americans with access to open spaces.

For more information, contact Eric Snyder at erics@sema.org.

Compiled by SEMA Editors

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), H.R. 1957, a bill that is critically important to revitalizing America’s outdoor recreation industry. The GAOA would dedicate $9.5 billion over the next five years to address the maintenance backlog on federally owned lands by creating a national parks and public land legacy restoration fund. The bill would also appropriate $900 million annually to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which allocates funding to protect natural areas, water resources, cultural heritage sites and to provide recreation opportunities. The SEMA-supported legislation is critical to addressing the infrastructure needs facing our public lands and waters, such as improving trails, roads, docks, campgrounds and more. The U.S. Senate passed the GAOA in June, which now heads to President Trump’s desk for his signature.  

The GAOA will benefit many SEMA members in the off-road market (four-wheel, ATVs and UTVs) in addition to companies producing and selling wheels/tires, suspension, power and other equipment to help tow RVs and boats to the nation’s parks and recreation areas. SEMA and 30 other national associations that comprise the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR) advocated for Congress to pass the GAOA and commend members for passing it with such strong bipartisan support. The bill addresses infrastructure needs of our public lands, creates jobs, and will provide Americans with access to open spaces.

For more information, contact Eric Snyder at erics@sema.org.

Compiled by SEMA Editors

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), H.R. 1957, a bill that is critically important to revitalizing America’s outdoor recreation industry. The GAOA would dedicate $9.5 billion over the next five years to address the maintenance backlog on federally owned lands by creating a national parks and public land legacy restoration fund. The bill would also appropriate $900 million annually to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which allocates funding to protect natural areas, water resources, cultural heritage sites and to provide recreation opportunities. The SEMA-supported legislation is critical to addressing the infrastructure needs facing our public lands and waters, such as improving trails, roads, docks, campgrounds and more. The U.S. Senate passed the GAOA in June, which now heads to President Trump’s desk for his signature.  

The GAOA will benefit many SEMA members in the off-road market (four-wheel, ATVs and UTVs) in addition to companies producing and selling wheels/tires, suspension, power and other equipment to help tow RVs and boats to the nation’s parks and recreation areas. SEMA and 30 other national associations that comprise the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR) advocated for Congress to pass the GAOA and commend members for passing it with such strong bipartisan support. The bill addresses infrastructure needs of our public lands, creates jobs, and will provide Americans with access to open spaces.

For more information, contact Eric Snyder at erics@sema.org.