U.S. Regulations Can Raise Risks for Reshoring and Next-Generation Manufacturing

01 October 2014 Manufacturing Industry Advisor Blog
Authors: Gregory Husisian

More than a third of United States businesses are either bringing back or considering bringing back manufacturing activity to the U.S. through “reshoring.” Although one would think that bringing production back to the U.S. would minimize the impact of U.S. regulations of international conduct, in many cases the opposite is true.

The aggressive enforcement of U.S. law to the overseas sales and conduct of U.S. companies raises special considerations for companies engaged in reshoring of manufacturing. Although there are no special laws that apply to such companies, U.S. law has special resonance for companies engaged in this type of activity, because they need to establish new trading patterns that often emphasize collaborative relationships with affiliates and partner companies. The combination of changing patterns of trade and the need to share technical data in a collaborative fashion often changes the risk profile of the organization in a way that implicates U.S. controls on exports and overseas conduct.

Reshoring often involves not the abandonment of non-U.S. production, but rather the rationalization of production across the global footprint of the organization, with collaborative rationalization of production across a multinational production base. Generally, the firm looking to engage in reshoring will conclude that efficient production requires manufacture in multiple markets. Thus, many firms engaged in reshoring find that they often are still relying on foreign manufacturers for production, whether internally or based on sourcing from outside companies and partners. For this reason, reshoring actually can complicate the supply chain when compared to a prior situation where the U.S. firm might have entirely manufactured a product in a foreign location.

Centralizing production within the U.S. increases the impact of U.S. export controls and economic sanctions laws across a firm’s global operations. Although the U.S. Government can use aggressive theories of extra-territoriality to reach sales activities of even separately incorporated affiliates of U.S. companies, the focus is all the greater where U.S.-origin products are involved or where sales are occurring directly by U.S. persons. Firms must also consider the interaction of U.S. production with the de minimis rules of the Export Administration Regulations. Under the dual-use de minimis rules, U.S. jurisdiction generally ends if the level of U.S.-origin content falls below ten percent (in the case of sanctioned countries) or 25 percent (for all other countries). This means that the dual-use export controls generally no longer apply to downstream products that contain less than this level of U.S.-origin content, even if the downstream product is sold to a sanctioned country. Where the product is reshored, the higher level of U.S. content, as well as its sale directly by a U.S. company, means that U.S. jurisdiction over any sale is a certainty.

Companies that are engaged in reshoring often find that they need to look carefully at rules that govern what may be seemingly innocuous acts that can be deemed export activity. Reshoring often involves U.S. companies bringing non-U.S. persons to aid with the transition or to oversee new U.S. production. Even where this does not occur, the introduction of new manufacturing to the U.S. can create deemed export situations with existing, non-U.S. nationals. Because U.S. export controls “deem” the sharing of controlled technical data with a non-U.S. person to be an export to the home country of that person, increased manufacturing activity in the U.S., which may result in exposure of non-U.S. persons to controlled technical data, can draw into play these deemed export rules.

A related development that also impacts the application of U.S. regulations of exports and international conduct is the movement to next-generation manufacturing techniques. Although the use of this term is fluid, in general it involves decentralized production, using new and sometimes highly automated production techniques, often in smaller batches that allow for highly specialized output to satisfy market demand. The movement to next-generation manufacturing promises to complicate the task of adhering to U.S. regulations of international conduct. In the next-generation manufacturing environment, the sharing of technical data, which may be controlled under U.S. export control regulations, is common. Collaborative arrangements with affiliates or partners can lead to inadvertent violations, as companies that previously focused on the physical movement of products find that their internal controls pay insufficient attention to rules regarding the licensable transfer of technical data to destinations outside the U.S.

As a result, reshoring and next-generation manufacturing have attributes that place companies engaged in such activities at a high risk for potential violations. Companies that are engaged in reshoring or next-generation manufacturing initiatives carefully need to monitor the impact of such activities on the regulatory risk profile of the company.

The application of U.S. laws governing exports and international conduct to reshoring activities is complicated and generally fact-dependent. Concerns can arise under export controls laws, economic sanctions regulations maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (where dealings with foreign officials or persons who work for state-owned entities are concerned), and other laws. 

A comprehensive compliance guide that covers all of these laws, including their application in the re-shoring and next-generation manufacturing context, is available by contacting the author at ghusisian@foley.com or 202.945.6149.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA