U.S. Travel and Tourism: Industry Trends and Policy Issues for Congress

[Excerpt] The travel and tourism industry is an amalgam of business activities including transportation, lodging, entertainment, meals, and retail trade. Collectively, this mature sector of the U.S. economy accounts for 2.8% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and directly employs 5.7 million Americans. While they have increased in recent years, employment and real output in travel and tourism have not fully recovered from the 2007-2009 recession. It is in this context that Congress will consider whether to reauthorize or extend the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA; P.L. 111-145), which established a national advertising and marketing effort to encourage international visitors to spend time in the United States. The law is scheduled to expire at the end of FY2015. A number of other bills intended to make travel to the United States less complicated for foreign visitors also await action in Congress. action in Congress

Reconciling U.S. Banking and Securities Data Preservation Rules with European Mandatory Data Erasure Under GDPR

United States law, which requires financial institutions to retain customer data, conflicts with European Union law, which requires financial institutions to delete customer data on demand. A financial institution operating transnationally cannot comply with both U.S. and EU law. Financial institutions thus face the issue that they cannot possibly delete and retain the same data simultaneously. This Note will clarify the scope and nature of this conflict. First, it will clarify the conflict by examining (1) the relevant laws, which are Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, (2) GDPR’s application to U.S. financial institutions, and (3) U.S. law’s extraterritorial application to financial institutions operating in Europe, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Morrison-Kiobel two-step analysis. Second, it will propose a solution by examining international law and U.S. foreign relations law. United States law subjects financial institutions to multiple data retention requirements. Securities regulations require broker-dealers to retain customer account and complaint records. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires financial institutions to retain customer data for at least five years. Sometimes, banks must permanently retain certain records. GDPR empowers individuals to demand that companies erase their data. Couched in the theory of a right to erasure, GDPR lets customers withdraw their consent for a financial institution to process or retain their data. Violators may face fines of 4 percent of their worldwide revenue. GDPR applies broadly to U.S. data-processors that either (1) are established in the European Union, or (2) monitor or offer to sell goods or services to individuals in the European Union. Establishment is broadly construed by European courts and may be met by “a single representative in the European Union.” In U.S. law, a two-step analysis determines whether and to what extent federal statutes govern conduct abroad. First, courts analyze whether the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted. The presumption derives from the canon that a statute, “unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction” of the United States. If the presumption is not rebutted, the court proceeds to the second step, when the court considers the statute’s “focus” and whether the case involves the statute’s domestic application. United States law has domestic application to data stored domestically, and sometimes possibly to data stored internationally; such data operations may also fall under GPDR’s jurisdiction. Then, if a customer asks a financial institution to delete data, the financial institution will face conflicting laws. This Note seeks to resolve the conflict, recommending that courts approach resolution from the framework of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Background, Legislation, and Policy Issues

[Excerpt] The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. §552) allows any person—individual or corporate, citizen or not—to request and obtain, without explanation or justification, existing, identifiable, and unpublished agency records on any topic. Pursuant to FOIA, the public has presumptive access to agency records unless the material falls within any of FOIA’s nine categories of exception. Disputes over the release of records requested pursuant to FOIA can be appealed administratively, resolved through mediation, or heard in court. This report provides background on FOIA, discusses the categories of records FOIA exempts from public release, and analyzes statistics on FOIA administration. The report also provides background on several legal and policy issues related to FOIA, including the release of controversial records, the growth in use of certain FOIA exemptions, and the adoption of new technologies to improve FOIA administration. The report concludes with an examination of potential FOIA-related policy options for the 113th Congress

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation: The Future of Commercial Trucking Across the Mexican Border

[Excerpt] NAFTA set forth a schedule for implementing its trucking provisions that would have opened the border states to cross-border trucking competition in 1995 and all of North America in 2000, but full implementation has been stalled because of concern with the safety of Mexican trucks. Congress first addressed these concerns in the FY2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87) which set 22 safety-related preconditions for opening the border to long-haul Mexican trucks. In November 2002, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced that all the preconditions had been met and began processing Mexican applications for U.S. long-haul authority. However, a suit over environmental compliance delayed implementation further. After the suit was resolved, in February 2007, the U.S. and Mexican Secretaries of Transportation announced a demonstration project to implement the NAFTA trucking provisions. The purpose of the project was to demonstrate the ability of Mexico-based motor carriers to operate safely in the United States beyond the border commercial zones. Up to 100 Mexico-domiciled carriers would be allowed to operate throughout the United States for one year and Mexico would allow the same for up to 100 U.S.-based carriers. With passage of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 110-28), Congress mandated additional requirements before the project could begin. After failing to defund the demonstration project in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress succeeded in terminating the demonstration project through a provision in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8). Subsequently, Mexico announced it would retaliate by increasing import duties on 90 U.S. products. The Obama Administration has indicated it intends to propose a revamped program that will address the concerns of Congress. The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) passed in December 2009 did not preclude funds from being spent on a long-haul Mexican truck pilot program, provided the terms and conditions stipulated in section 350 of P.L. 107-87 and section 6901 of P.L. 110-28 were satisfied. One truck safety statistic, “out-of-service” rates, indicates that Mexican trucks operating in the United States are now safer than they were a decade ago. The data indicate that Mexican trucks and drivers have a comparable safety record to U.S. truckers. Another study indicates that the truck driver is usually the more critical factor in causing accidents than a safety defect with the truck itself. Service characteristics of long-haul trucking suggest that substandard carriers would likely not succeed in this market. As shipment distance increases, the relative cost of trucking compared to rail increases, and thus shippers utilizing long-haul trucking are willing to pay more because they require premium service, such as precise delivery windows or cargo refrigeration. These exacting service requirements would seem to disqualify truckers with unreliable equipment or incompetent drivers. In contrast, the short-haul “drayage” carriers that Mexican long-haul carriers would displace, typically use older equipment because of the many hours spent idling awaiting customs processing at the border. If Mexican carriers do eventually receive long-haul authority, the short term impact is expected to be gradual as Mexican firms deal with a number of stumbling blocks, including lack of prearranged back hauls and higher insurance and capital costs, in addition to the customs processing delays. In the long run, use of drayage companies is likely to decline as they lose part of their market share to Mexican long-haul carriers. The most common trips for these carriers will probably be from the Mexican interior to warehouse facilities on the U.S. side of the border or to nearby cities in the border states

2009 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Enacted in 2004, Public Law 108-375 also created an Office of the Ombudsman (the Office) and urged the Secretary of Labor to take appropriate action to ensure that it be an independent Office within the Department of Labor (DOL), including independence from the other officers and employees of the DOL engaged in activities related to the administration of the provision of the EEOICPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(d). The Secretary of Labor appointed an Ombudsman in February 2005, and the Office submitted its first report to Congress covering calendar year 2005 on February 15, 2006. When initially created, the duties of the Office only extended to Part E. On October 28, 2009, Public Law 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, expanded the authority of the Office to also include Part B of the EEOICPA. The day to day activities of the Office are driven by two goals; 1) to provide information and assistance to claimants and potential claimants regarding the EEOICPA; (2) to provide opportunities for claimants and potential claimants to express their complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance concerning this program. In achieving these goals, the Office: Engages in outreach – We sponsor town hall meetings, as well as attend other meetings, forums and workshops where we discuss the EEOICPA and its requirements. This year, with the assistance of the efforts of a task force comprised of many of the agencies involved with the EEOICPA we were able to attend 20 outreach meetings in 11 different cities. Clarifies/explains documents and procedures – The EEOICPA can be very complicated and decisions are oftentimes based on very technical medical, scientific and/or legal concepts. We are contacted by claimants who find it difficult to comprehend these concepts. In addition, there are a many nuances to this program – for example for many of the “rules” there is at least one exception. Some claimants need assistance “steering the right course” as they proceed with their claim. Receives complaints, grievances and requests for assistance – Individuals with pending claims; individuals whose claims were denied; as well as some individuals whose claims were awarded, contact the Office or attend our town hall meetings, to voice complaints and grievances with this program. We are also contacted on occasion by claimants who have complimentary comments concerning the program – usually complimenting the services provided by individuals associated with the program. Provides assistance – It is rare when we are contacted by an individual who simply wants to voice a complaint. Most individuals contact us because they are seeking assistance with their claim. In some instances, we are asked to explain a word or decision. On other occasions, we are asked to provide assistance locating necessary records, or our input is sought on how to proceed with a claim. Inasmuch as many claimants do not have access to computers, we also frequently provide public information such as copies the Site Exposure Matrices; Site Profiles; listing of the 22 cancers covered for purposes of Special Exposure Cohorts, etc. Within the limits of our authority and resources, we assist claimants however we can. The report that follows is a synthesis of the many e-mails, letters, telephone calls, faxes, and face to face conversations that members of this staff had over the past year

Air pollution and livestock production

The air in a livestock farming environment contains high concentrations of dust particles and gaseous pollutants. The total inhalable dust can enter the nose and mouth during normal breathing and the thoracic dust can reach into the lungs. However, it is the respirable dust particles that can penetrate further into the gas-exchange region, making it the most hazardous dust component. Prolonged exposure to high concentrations of dust particles can lead to respiratory health issues for both livestock and farming staff. Ammonia, an example of a gaseous pollutant, is derived from the decomposition of nitrous compounds. Increased exposure to ammonia may also have an effect on the health of humans and livestock. There are a number of technologies available to ensure exposure to these pollutants is minimised. Through proactive means, (the optimal design and management of livestock buildings) air quality can be improved to reduce the likelihood of risks associated with sub-optimal air quality. Once air problems have taken hold, other reduction methods need to be applied utilising a more reactive approach. A key requirement for the control of concentration and exposure of airborne pollutants to an acceptable level is to be able to conduct real-time measurements of these pollutants. This paper provides a review of airborne pollution including methods to both measure and control the concentration of pollutants in livestock buildings

Omnipresent Chemicals: TSCA Preemption in the Wake of PFAS Contamination

Over the past few decades, studies addressing the harms of PFAS have gradually progressed, and now scientists believe increased exposure could lead to reproductive defects and a higher risk of cancer. Given the amplified concern surrounding these pervasive chemicals, states are proactively filing lawsuits on behalf of their citizens and enacting legislation to combat this nation-wide contamination epidemic. However, given the 2016 Amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, states looking to regulate the manufacturing or looking to ratify a state- wide ban on the manufacturing of such chemicals may face preemption under actions taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This Note focuses on the possible loss of state autonomy with regards to PFAS regulation. It addresses the issues states might face given the restrictive nature of the newly enacted preemption provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, while also examining the Act’s possible deficiencies. Ultimately, recognizing a need for creative solutions outside the scope of manufacturing regulations may provide the best solutions for states to combat these ubiquitous chemicals