4654 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joann S. Anderson, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Income 

Security Programs, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

(410) 965–6716. 

For information on eligibility or filing 

for benefits, call our national toll-free 

number, 1–(800)–772–1213 or TTY 

1–(800)–325–0778, or visit our Internet 

site, Social Security Online, at http:// 

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Requiring Electronic Filing of Appeals 

On September 12, 2011, we published 

final rules that require representatives to 

conduct business with us electronically 

at the times and in the manner we 

prescribe on matters for which the 

representative requests direct fee 

payment. At the time, we did not 

require representatives to use any 

specific electronic service. Rather, in the 

preamble to the final rule (76 FR 56107), 

we stated that, ‘‘Once we determine that 

we should make a particular electronic 

service publicly available because it 

works well, we will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register. The notice will 

contain the new requirement(s) and a 

list of all established electronic service 

requirements.’’ We also said in the 

preamble that we would adjust the 

burden for affected Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approved collections before requiring 

representatives to use the collections’ 

electronic versions. We published a 

notice on December 1, 2011 (76 FR 

74838) concerning the burden 

adjustment for the affected electronic 

services under OMB No. 0960–0144, 

Disability Report-Appeal, OMB No. 

0960–0269 (Request for Hearing by 

Administrative Law Judge), and OMB 

No. 0960–0622, Request for 

Reconsideration. 

As of March 16, 2012, we will begin 

mandating electronic filing of certain 

appeals in each matter in which a 

representative requests direct payment 

of the authorized fee. This electronic 

filing requirement is limited to the filing 

of a request for reconsideration or for a 

hearing by an administrative law judge 

for disability claims under title II of the 

Social Security Act (Act) or 

Supplemental Security Income claims 

based on disability or blindness under 

title XVI of the Act denied for medical 

reasons. Representatives must satisfy 

this electronic filing requirement by 

using our Internet Appeals web portal: 

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

A representative has an affirmative 

duty to comply with this requirement. 

We may investigate to determine if a 

representative purposefully violated this 

duty or is attempting to circumvent our 

rules. We may sanction a representative 

who does not follow these rules. 

However, we will not reject or delay a 

claimant’s request or process it 

differently if a representative fails to 

comply with this electronic filing 

requirement. 

Claimants, whether they are 

represented or not, and representatives 

who are not eligible for or who do not 

request direct fee payment on a matter, 

may continue to file all appeal requests 

either electronically, on paper, or in any 

manner we prescribe. 

Additional Information 

Additional information is available on 

our Representing Claimants Web site at 

http://www.ssa.gov/representation/ or it 

can be obtained by writing to: Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Public Inquiries, Windsor Park 

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21235. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 96.001, Social SecurityDisability Insurance; 96.002, Social SecurityRetirement Insurance; 96.004, Social 

Security-Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, 

Supplemental Security Income) 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1597 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Part 641 

RIN 1205–AB60 

Senior Community Service 

Employment Program; Final Rule, 

Additional Indicator on Volunteer Work 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) of the 

Department of Labor (Department) 

issues this final rule to implement an 

additional indicator for volunteer work 

in the Senior Community Service 

Employment Program (SCSEP). 

Specifically, this rule amends our 

regulations regarding Performance 

Accountability for title V of the Older 

Americans Act (OAA) and 

corresponding definitions. These 

regulations provide administrative and 

programmatic guidance and 

requirements for the implementation of 

the SCSEP. 

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is 

effective March 1, 2012. The 

information collection requirements 

contained in this rule have been 

submitted to OMB for approval; 

however, that approval is pending. 

Upon OMB concluding its review, the 

Department will publish a subsequent 

notice to announce OMB’s action on the 

request and when the information 

collections will take effect. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith Gilbert, Team Leader, Division of 

National Programs, Tools and Technical 

Assistance, Office of Workforce 

Investment, U.S. Department of Labor, 

200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S– 

4209, Washington, DC 20210; telephone 

(202) 693–3046 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with hearing or 

speech impairments may access the 

telephone number above via TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at 1–(800)–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

preamble to this Final Rule is organized 

as follows: 

I. Background—provides a brief description 

of the development of the final rule. 

II. Summary of the Comments—provides an 

overview of the comments received. 

III. Section-by-Section Review—summarizes 

and discusses changes to the SCSEP 

regulations. 

IV. Administrative Information—sets forth 

the applicable regulatory requirements. 

I. Background 

The SCSEP, authorized by title V of 

the OAA, is the only Federallysponsored employment and training 

program targeted specifically to lowincome older individuals who want to 

enter or re-enter the workforce. 

Participants must be unemployed and 

55 years of age or older and have 

incomes at no more than 125 percent of 

the Federal poverty level. The program 

offers participants training at 

community service assignments in 

public and non-profit agencies. The 

dual goals of the program are to promote 

useful opportunities in community 

service activities and to also move 

SCSEP participants into unsubsidized 

employment, where appropriate, so that 

they can achieve economic selfsufficiency. The Older Americans Act 

Amendments of 2006, Public Law 109– 

365 (2006 OAA), amended the statute 

authorizing the SCSEP and necessitated 

changes to the SCSEP regulations in 20 

CFR part 641. A final rule promulgating 

such changes was published on 

September 1, 2010. 75 FR 53786. 

Previously, an interim final rule (IFR) 

on performance measures was 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4655 

1See generally, The Health Benefits of 

Volunteering, A Review of Recent Research, The 

Corporation for National and Community Service, 

2007, available at: http://www.nationalservice.gov/ 

about/role_impact/performance_research.asp#HBR. 

published on June 29, 2007, and a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

was published on August 14, 2008. This 

statute requires the Department to issue 

definitions of any indicator of 

performance through regulation. OAA 

§ 513(b)(3). 

As established in the SCSEP Final 

Rule published September 1, 2010, there 

are eight performance measures, of 

which six are core indicators and two 

are additional indicators. 20 CFR 

641.700(b) and (c). The OAA requires 

the grantees and the Secretary of Labor 

to ‘‘reach agreement on the expected 

level of performance’’ for the six core 

indicators, but has no such requirement 

for the additional indicators. OAA 

§ 513(a)(2)(C). 

In comments on the SCSEP IFR of 

June 29, 2007, and the SCSEP NPRM of 

August 14, 2008, several commenters 

expressed concern that the proposed 

measures were not appropriate to the 

SCSEP because they placed an undue 

emphasis on employment outcomes and 

did not adequately reflect the 

importance of community service. 

Grantees who commented said that they 

felt the SCSEP performance 

measurement system did not adequately 

value community service and that there 

was too much emphasis on employment 

outcomes. 

Although in the SCSEP Final Rule 

published on September 1, 2010, we 

declined ‘‘at this time’’ to adopt any 

additional indicators beyond those 

required by statute, after due 

consideration, the Department has 

decided that the benefits of adopting an 

additional indicator of volunteer work 

outweigh the additional burden of 

collecting the data for the indicator. 

Under its authority in OAA 

§ 513(b)(2)(C) to add additional 

indicators of performance, the 

Department solicited comments on an 

additional performance indicator for 

volunteer work by publishing the 

SCSEP NPRM on an Additional 

Indicator for Volunteer Work, on 

November 23, 2010. 75 FR 71514. The 

additional indicator outlined in the 

NPRM proposes volunteer work as a 

way to provide additional information 

and emphasis on the community service 

goal of SCSEP. The summary of the 

comments from that NPRM follows. 

II. Summary of the Comments 

We received 113 comments on the 

NPRM from State and local 

governmental entities, non-profit 

organizations that host or help to place 

participants, academic professionals in 

the field of gerontology and several 

private citizens. Overall, comments on 

the NPRM were extremely supportive of 

the NPRM, stating that the NPRM 

clearly supports Congressional intent as 

reflected in the statement of purpose 

and the dual goals of SCSEP. 

The main reason cited by most 

commenters for supporting the 

additional indicator was the large and 

rapidly growing body of research about 

the important benefits of volunteer work 

for the elderly and the positive impact 

their volunteer work has on the larger 

community. Specifically, several 

commenters, including a director of a 

multi-year research project on older 

adult civic engagement, cited a report 

from the Corporation for National and 

Community Service, ‘‘* * * ‘The Health 

Benefits of Volunteering: A Review of 

Recent Research,’ [which] documents 

that those who volunteer have lower 

mortality rates, greater functional 

ability, and lower rates of depression 

later in life than those who do not 

volunteer.’’ Commenters also noted that 

volunteerism is more likely to occur 

where people are invited to volunteer, 

or where volunteer options are 

presented to them, therefore improving 

the pool of trained, active volunteers in 

communities across the country. 

Finally, according to the comments, 

‘‘* * * [R]esearch consistently shows 

that older volunteers in particular 

benefit greatly from improved physical 

well-being, enhanced self-esteem, and a 

greater sense of personal 

accomplishment.’’ This assertion is 

supported by the research cited above.1

Three comments were submitted that 

opposed the proposed additional 

indicator. These commenters voiced 

strong opposition to the additional 

indicator, suggesting that the focus of 

SCSEP should be on the unsubsidized 

employment goal alone, rather than a 

shared emphasis with community 

service. These commenters also were 

concerned that volunteerism would 

discourage employers from hiring 

participants when they could continue 

to volunteer. However, the purpose of 

this regulation is not to create an either/ 

or situation, where we encourage 

volunteer work over employment or 

vice versa. Rather, the point is to ask 

grantees and/or sub-grantees to make a 

good faith effort to account for any 

participants who choose to volunteer 

post-SCSEP entry, regardless of whether 

they also have found unsubsidized 

employment. The information culled 

from this additional indicator will 

provide further information on both the 

impact of the SCSEP on the individual 

SCSEP participants, and the impact of 

the SCSEP on local communities 

through an increase in volunteerism by 

both current and former SCSEP 

participants. 

Finally, a few other commenters were 

concerned about whether ‘‘a measure of 

volunteerism as a program outcome may 

be misinterpreted by policy makers’’ 

because other ‘‘successful programs 

administered by the Corporation for 

National and Community Service are 

being operated at a considerably lower 

unit cost.’’ Essentially, these 

commenters are concerned that the 

SCSEP budget will suffer because, in 

their view, the reason for existing 

support from lawmakers is based 

entirely on SCSEP’s ‘‘outstanding record 

of placing the hardest to serve older 

workers in employment and providing 

paid community service opportunities 

to those enrolled.’’ The Department 

understands this concern and agrees 

that an important connection exists 

between SCSEP’s outstanding record of 

placement and its continued funding by 

Congress. However, as discussed above, 

the OAA laid out dual goals for the 

SCSEP: unsubsidized employment and 

community service. It is appropriate to 

consider the success of the program in 

achieving both of these goals. 

Consequently, the Department believes 

that this volunteerism indicator will 

reinforce the value of the community 

service aspect of SCSEP. 

The Department acknowledged in the 

September 1, 2010 Final Rule that 

unsubsidized employment is not a 

suitable or appropriate outcome for 

every SCSEP participant, and that while 

our participants are low-income and in 

need of financial support, being 

employed may not be an appropriate or 

achievable outcome for every individual 

participant. Rather, because community 

service is an equally important goal of 

SCSEP, as envisioned by Congress in the 

OAA, the Department is following 

Congress’ lead by collecting information 

about how participation in SCSEP 

community service leads to continued 

service to the community after 

participants exit SCSEP. DOL finds this 

information valuable not only for those 

individuals for whom unsubsidized 

employment post-SCSEP is not an 

appropriate or achievable outcome, but 

also for those who do obtain 

unsubsidized employment. We are not 

collecting information only for those 

who volunteer after exit without having 

a job; rather, we are collecting 

information regardless of whether the 

participant also has found unsubsidized 

employment. 

We discuss the more specific 

substantive comments received on the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4656 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

NPRM in Section III below. Section III 

does not include discussion of those 

provisions that were not the subject of 

a comment, or that were not revised for 

technical reasons. We have adopted 

such provisions as proposed, without 

further discussion. 

III. Section-by-Section Review 

In this section, we discuss the 

comments on specific provisions of the 

proposed regulation, our responses to 

them and any changes to the regulations 

that we made as a result of the 

comments. 

Subpart A—Purpose and Definitions 

What definitions apply to this subpart? 

(§ 641.140) 

Section 641.140 of the SCSEP 

regulations provides definitions for the 

SCSEP, including definitions relevant to 

the SCSEP performance measures and 

indicators. The NPRM proposed to 

amend the definitions in § 641.140 to 

accommodate a new additional 

indicator in § 641.710. The NPRM 

proposed to add ‘‘entry into volunteer 

work’’ to the definition of ‘‘additional 

indicators.’’ The existing regulations 

provide that the only additional 

indicators are the two required by the 

statute: (1) retention in unsubsidized 

employment for 1 year; and (2) the 

satisfaction of participants, employers 

and their host agencies with their 

experiences and the services provided. 

The term ‘‘additional indicators’’ now 

would include three indicators. 

This Final Rule amends the proposed 

rule to add a new definition of 

‘‘volunteer work’’ to § 641.140 for clarity 

and uniformity, so that all grantees 

understand and use the same definition, 

all seniors are treated the same, and all 

data we receive are comparable from 

grantee to grantee. The original language 

of this definition in the NPRM referred 

only to ‘‘a public agency of a State, local 

government or intergovernmental 

agency, or for a charity or similar 

nonprofit organization.’’ One 

commenter suggested that we add 

specific language recognizing that 

volunteer work can occur in faith- or 

community-based organizations, since 

they also provide significant community 

service opportunities. We agree. 

Although the proposed definition was 

not intended to exclude volunteer work 

with faith- or community-based 

organizations, for the sake of clarity we 

have amended the definition to include 

faith- or community-based organizations 

as among those entities for which 

volunteer work may be performed. 

Upon further reflection, for data 

collection purposes, we also have 

broadened the language of the definition 

to make clear that it includes informal 

volunteer work that an individual 

performs on his or her own and not 

through an organization. An example 

would be a woman who invites 

neighborhood girls to her home after 

school for sewing classes. This type of 

informal volunteering is fairly common 

and is as likely to have positive effects 

on those who volunteer as is a volunteer 

activity conducted through non-profit 

organizations. This informal volunteer 

work does not include service 

performed for a member of the 

individual’s own family or of the 

individual’s own household since the 

self-interest of the individual makes it 

impossible to determine whether it is 

being performed with the intent to help 

others, which is the essence of volunteer 

work. Because the circumstances under 

which participants may enter into 

informal volunteer activities may vary 

widely, we will not count such 

activities in the performance indicator. 

But we are interested in capturing the 

positive impact on participants who 

enter into informal volunteer activities, 

so we will collect information about 

such volunteer activities. Therefore, 

these type of informal volunteer 

activities will not be included in the 

calculation of the ‘‘entry into volunteer 

indicator’’ under § 641.140. The 

Department will collect and share 

information about the informal 

volunteer work for information 

purposes only. 

In another change, we have deleted 

the portion of the definition that reads: 

‘‘[v]olunteer work does not include 

work a former participant performs that 

is similar or identical to work the former 

participant performed for compensation 

for the organization.’’ From a reading of 

the comments, it is apparent that this 

language was confusing, and detracted 

from our primary goal of creating a 

definition of ‘‘volunteer’’ that is 

consonant with that concept as it is 

applied under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., a 

statute that is administered and 

enforced by the Department’s Wage and 

Hour Division. SCSEP has always 

prohibited participants from 

volunteering at the host agency at which 

they are performing their community 

service assignment. This deletion is 

meant to clarify that this prohibition 

does not extend to volunteering at the 

host agency after exit from the program, 

nor does it prohibit a former SCSEP 

participant from using the skills learned 

in a SCSEP placement when later 

volunteering for another organization. 

The definition, as revised, now reads 

that volunteer work means ‘‘(1) for 

purposes of § 641.140 of this part, 

activities or work that former 

participants perform for a public agency 

of a State, local government or 

intergovernmental agency, or for a 

charity or not-for-profit organization, 

including faith-based or communitybased organizations, for civic, 

charitable, or humanitarian reasons, and 

without promise, expectation, or receipt 

of compensation; (2) for informational 

reporting purposes, volunteer work also 

can include similar activities that a 

former participant performs on his or 

her own that are not conducted through 

a formal organization or agency as long 

as those activities are not performed for 

a member of the former participant’s 

family or of the individual’s own 

household. These types of volunteer 

activities will not be included in the 

calculation of the ‘‘entry into volunteer 

work’’ indicator under § 641.140.’’ This 

definition closely follows the concept of 

a volunteer as it is used under the 

FLSA, which recognizes the generosity 

and public benefit of volunteering. 

Encouraging volunteerism, however, 

must be balanced with the fundamental 

purpose of the FLSA, which is to 

prevent covered employers from gaining 

an unfair competitive advantage through 

payment of substandard wages. See 

Tony and Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec’y 

of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 296 (1985). 

Grantees, sub-grantees and host 

agencies should be aware that the FLSA, 

and in particular its definitions of 

‘‘employee’’ and ‘‘employ,’’ has been 

interpreted quite broadly to effectuate 

its remedial purposes. See, e.g., Alamo 

Found., 471 U.S. at 299. For example, 

the Department has consistently stated 

that individuals cannot volunteer for 

for-profit entities, or volunteer in the 

business and commercial activities of a 

non-profit organization when those 

activities are covered by the FLSA. 

Likewise, so-called volunteer work that 

an individual performs for a former 

employer will be closely scrutinized to 

determine whether an employment 

relationship exists, particularly if the 

individual is performing the same 

services for which he or she was 

previously employed. See, e.g., 29 CFR 

553.103. 

We recognize that the new indicator 

for entered volunteer work is based on 

self-report by former participants and 

that grantees are not in a position to 

monitor the conditions in the nonprofit 

organizations in which former 

participants perform volunteer work. 

However, grantees, sub-grantees, and 

nonprofit organizations should consult 

with their nearest Wage and Hour 

Division office if they have questions 

about whether activities performed by 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4657 

current or former SCSEP participants 

constitute employment under the FLSA. 

Additional information on the FLSA 

definitions of ‘‘employer,’’ ‘‘employee,’’ 

and ‘‘employ’’ is available in the Wage 

and Hour’s Field Operations Handbook 

Chapter 10 (http://www.dol.gov/whd/ 

FOH/FOH_Ch10.pdf). For information 

on finding local Wage and Hour 

Division offices, please visit: http:// 

www.dol.gov/whd. 

Subpart G—Performance Accountability 

What performance measures/indicators 

apply to SCSEP grantees? (§ 641.700) 

20 CFR 641.700 separates SCSEP 

indicators into two categories: core and 

additional. The NPRM proposed to 

amend § 641.700(a) to add a new 

additional indicator. Additional 

indicators are not subject to goal-setting 

and therefore are not subject to 

corrective action. However, the statute 

does mandate that the Department 

annually publish each grantee’s 

performance on additional indicators. In 

addition, the NPRM also proposed to 

amend paragraph (c)(3), which currently 

only lists the additional indicators of 

employment retention and customer 

satisfaction, to reflect that the Secretary 

has designated entry into volunteer 

work as an additional indicator. 

DOL intends for the new indicator of 

‘‘entered volunteer work’’ to parallel the 

‘‘entered employment’’ measure, which 

grantees have been reporting since 2004. 

SCSEP grantees can capture much of the 

information required for this indicator 

at the time of exit and need only 

confirm the participant’s engagement in 

volunteer work at any time during the 

quarter after the exit quarter, in the 

same way as grantees have long 

captured the data for entered 

employment at the first follow-up after 

exit. We note that during this brief 

follow-up with former participants, 

grantees may also learn if the 

participants have obtained unsubsidized 

employment, of which the grantee was 

not previously aware, and for which 

placement the grantee also may obtain 

entered employment credit. Like the 

entered employment measure, which 

excludes participants who were 

employed at the time of enrollment, the 

new indicator excludes those who are 

engaged in volunteer work at the time 

of entry into the SCSEP. However, as is 

true with the entered employment 

measure, grantees will collect data on 

several aspects of the volunteer work, 

including whether the participant had 

been performing volunteer work at the 

time of entry into the SCSEP or during 

the community service assignment, and 

information about the type of volunteer 

work performed after exit, the setting in 

which it is performed, and the number 

of hours of volunteer work per week. 

DOL will collect data on these 

characteristics in the SCSEP data 

collection system so they can be used 

for analysis and additional reporting, 

but DOL will not use the data to 

measure the performance of the grantee. 

The actual measure itself will report 

only on the percent of participants who 

were not volunteering at the time of 

enrollment but are volunteering after 

exit. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the regulatory text be changed to delete 

‘‘entry into’’ and substitute with ‘‘new 

or continued participation in’’ volunteer 

work. A number of commenters 

appeared to mistakenly interpret the 

exclusion of individuals already 

volunteering from the indicator as an 

exclusion from SCSEP eligibility and 

suggested we remove the restriction that 

participants cannot be engaged in 

volunteer activity upon enrollment in 

SCSEP. One commenter raised concerns 

about who might be excluded from the 

broad definition, asking, ‘‘Would 

everyone who volunteered at the time of 

entry into SCSEP be excluded regardless 

of type/extent of volunteerism?’’ 

Another commenter said that ‘‘[s]ince I 

have observed many seniors who 

volunteer while also doing paid work, I 

would recommend that you consider 

not imposing the restriction that SCSEP 

enrollees not be engaged in volunteering 

work before leaving the program.’’ 

In response to these comments, we are 

explaining in this preamble that the new 

indicator will have no impact on 

eligibility and explaining why the 

indicator does not count those who 

were volunteering before enrollment. As 

stated earlier, DOL will collect data 

about those individuals who were 

volunteering before SCSEP entry and 

will also share this data when it reports 

the additional indicator of entry into 

volunteer work, which does not include 

those who were volunteering prior to 

entry. The exclusion of participants who 

were doing volunteer work at the time 

of enrollment applies only to 

determining who is in the pool of 

participants counted in the additional 

indicator of entry into volunteer work. 

It has nothing to do with eligibility for 

SCSEP. The purpose of the new 

indicator is to determine what effect 

SCSEP participation has on former 

participants’ desire to remain active and 

continue their community service 

through volunteer work. There is little 

value in collecting a simple count of 

SCSEP participants who volunteer after 

exit unless we know what their status 

was before enrollment. Without that 

information, we are merely reporting 

something about the individuals who 

enrolled, while not necessarily revealing 

the impact of SCSEP. Specifically, if we 

do not narrow the pool of participants 

to exclude those participants doing 

volunteer work already when they 

enrolled in SCSEP, then we are unable 

to correlate their volunteerism after 

SCSEP with their participation in 

SCSEP. 

The Department proposed this 

additional indicator to identify 

volunteer work initiated after 

enrollment so that we can define the 

impact that SCSEP has on the lives of 

participants, not only during but also 

after exit from the program. Therefore, 

individuals who reported having 

volunteered upon enrollment are not 

included in any way in the calculation 

of the volunteer work indicator. For 

these reasons, we do not want to 

include these individuals in the 

additional indicator. 

Some commenters who objected to 

the language about ‘‘entry into’’ 

volunteer work also misunderstood the 

purpose and effect of the new indicator. 

Grantees are required by the SCSEP 

Final Rule published on September 1, 

2010 to assist participants in finding 

unsubsidized employment if that goal is 

feasible for them. The core measure of 

entered employment provides an 

additional incentive for grantees to 

provide this assistance and to claim 

credit for unsubsidized placements 

whenever possible. However, if 

unsubsidized employment is not 

feasible, or if participants are due to exit 

without having secured unsubsidized 

employment, grantees are obligated to 

assist participants in achieving other 

forms of self-sufficiency, which 

includes opportunities to continue or 

start volunteer work after the SCSEP 

participation ends. This volunteer 

service is not necessarily an alternative 

to employment; indeed, it may occur 

concurrently with unsubsidized 

employment. The new indicator merely 

captures volunteer service where it 

exists and reports it as an additional 

program outcome. 

How are the performance indicators 

defined? (§ 641.710) 

The NPRM proposed to establish the 

new additional indicator in § 641.710 by 

adding a new paragraph to (b)(3), which 

defines the ‘‘entry into volunteer work’’ 

measure. This Final Rule adopts the 

additional indicator as proposed. As set 

forth above, DOL intends for the new 

indicator to parallel the existing core 

measure of entered employment, which 

SCSEP has been reporting since 2004. 

The denominator for the new indicator 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4658 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

consists of all participants who exit 

during a quarter, and the numerator 

consists of all those participants who 

are engaged in any volunteer work in 

the quarter after they exited. The 

indicator entirely excludes participants 

who were engaged in volunteer work at 

the time of entry into the SCSEP: such 

participants are neither in the 

denominator nor in the numerator. As 

explained above, DOL will collect and 

report the data for such individuals 

separately and not as an additional 

program outcome. 

In order to provide context for the 

new indicator and to make it more 

useful, grantees will enter into the 

SCSEP data system information on the 

characteristics of the volunteer work (as 

they currently do for the characteristics 

of unsubsidized employment), 

including the number of hours per week 

and whether participants were engaged 

in volunteer work at the time of entry 

into the SCSEP or during their 

community service assignment, so that 

it will be possible to determine which 

participants are newly engaged in 

volunteer work after exiting as a result 

of participating in the SCSEP and which 

are continuing to do volunteer work. 

Later in this preamble, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) section sets forth 

the data elements that DOL will capture 

in conjunction with this new indicator. 

Several commenters suggested that 

volunteer work should be on the list of 

excluded exits for the Common 

Measures, described in Training and 

Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 

No. 17–05, so that it is not considered 

a negative exit but rather a neutral 

outcome, and so that it would keep 

documentation and follow-up required 

of sponsors to a minimum. Since the 

additional indicator supplements 

entered employment and is not an 

alternative to it, making volunteer 

service an additional exclusion under 

the Common Measures TEGL is not 

necessary. Whether an exiter who 

engages in volunteer work after exit 

qualifies for an exclusion under the 

TEGL is determined by the reason for 

the exit, not by how the participant 

chooses to spend her time after exit. The 

TEGL addresses only the core measure 

of entered employment and has nothing 

to do with the additional indicators. 

Other commenters said volunteer 

service should be measured in ways that 

parallel the other additional indicators, 

rather than the core indicators. For 

example, one commenter recommended 

that ‘‘[v]olunteering should be measured 

in a manner parallel to * * * ‘customer 

satisfaction’ or ‘retention in 

unsubsidized employment for 1 year’ 

and should not parallel the 

measurement of a core indicator such as 

‘entered employment.’ ’’ One commenter 

expressed concern ‘‘that in an attempt to 

‘parallel’ the entered employment 

measure, resulting data collection 

requirements will be unnecessarily 

burdensome when implemented.’’ 

Another commenter suggested ‘‘a more 

simplistic process that allows grantees 

to track participants 30 days after exit’’ 

and that the Department should 

‘‘provide additional guidance on 

documenting such exits in SPARQ’’ 

before publishing this Final Rule, as 

well as reduce paperwork ‘‘by allowing 

grantees to utilize the same 

documentation for the ‘entered 

employment’ performance measure as 

acceptable documentation for 

[v]olunteerism.’’ Further, another 

commenter recommended that the 

indicator should include ‘‘quantifying 

community satisfaction with the SCSEP 

volunteer and the number of hours that 

are donated to the community.’’ 

We understand the commenters’ 

concerns, but those who suggest that we 

should follow the approach of the 

additional indicators rather than the 

core indicators overlook that the 

customer satisfaction measures employ 

a well defined and universally used 

definition (the American Customer 

Satisfaction Index, the ACSI) and that 

the indicator for retention at one year 

employs a definition that closely 

follows the common measures. Because 

grantees are familiar with the entered 

employment indicator as a useful and 

meaningful way to capture information 

about SCSEP participants, we believe 

that paralleling that indicator to capture 

the rate of volunteer work is the most 

effective means to evaluate both the 

impact of SCSEP on continuing service 

to the community and enhanced quality 

of life for participants. 

As one commenter suggested, the 

additional data collection that will 

accompany the new indicator will 

enable the Department to report the 

number of volunteer hours performed 

post-exit along with an estimate of their 

monetary value to the organizations and 

communities in which the service is 

performed, by multiplying the hours by 

the standard monetary value of 

volunteer work. Since the participant 

customer satisfaction survey already 

includes exiters in its sample, it may 

also be feasible to add a few additional 

questions to this survey in order to 

determine the satisfaction of exiters 

with their volunteer work and the 

impact of this volunteer work on their 

quality of life. We agree that such data 

would increase the value and usefulness 

of the indicator because DOL would be 

able to use this information to enhance 

the various reports and analyses of these 

issues that it routinely conducts. 

Some commenters also were 

concerned about the entry into 

volunteer work definition’s impact on 

grantees, not simply of the data 

collection burden, but also in helping 

participants seeking post-SCSEP 

volunteer positions overcome barriers to 

service. Commenters stated that grantees 

would need training on volunteerism to 

better assist older adults, and that 

without training, ‘‘it will be difficult to 

connect participants to opportunities 

well-suited and can be discouraging for 

some. Barriers to volunteerism exist just 

as they do in the SCSEP such as lack of 

transportation and location, working for 

free and not receiving a paycheck, 

conflicts in scheduling (much like those 

used for breaks in participation), care 

giving, costs associated with proper 

attire, and mismanagement of 

expectations of assigned tasks.’’ The 

Department recognizes these concerns 

but notes that grantees already have an 

obligation under the SCSEP Final Rule 

published on September 1, 2010 to 

prepare and implement transition plans 

for participants who are exiting the 

program without having secured 

unsubsidized employment. 20 CFR 

641.570(a)(2). As part of the transition 

plan, grantees are expected to assess the 

participants’ circumstances, including 

their degree of social engagement, and 

to assist participants in identifying 

volunteer activities that meet their 

needs and interests and that may serve 

to enhance their physical and emotional 

well-being. The Department already has 

provided considerable training and 

resources to the grantees on how to meet 

that obligation, and the Department 

intends to offer additional training and 

technical assistance as needed. The new 

additional indicator of entry into 

volunteer service provides a degree of 

credit to the grantees for doing this 

work, but it in no way imposes a new 

programmatic responsibility on them. 

IV. Administrative Information 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

Executive Order 13272, Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

at 5 U.S.C. 603 requires agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to determine whether a regulation will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Section 605(b) of the RFA allows an 

agency to certify a rule in lieu of 

preparing an analysis if the regulation is 

not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Section 601 of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4659 

the RFA defines small entities to 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, including not-for-profit 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. Section 601(4) defines a 

small organization as any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and not dominant in its 

field. 

SCSEP includes 74 grantees, and 

approximately 970 sub-recipients and 

sub-sub-recipients. More than 50 of the 

grantees are States, State agencies, or 

territories, and are not small entities as 

defined within the RFA. The vast 

majority of the rest are non-profit 

organizations, many of which may be 

categorized as small entities for RFA 

purposes. The Department does not 

have a precise number of small entities 

that may be impacted by this 

rulemaking. 

The Department has determined that 

the economic impact of this Final Rule 

is not likely to be significant for any of 

these small entities, because these 

regulations will result in negligible 

additional costs to grantees and subrecipients. This Final Rule involving 

SCSEP performance measures will have 

only a minor information collection 

impact on a number of small entities. 

DOL has addressed this burden by 

submitting to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) a request for 

approval for changes to three of the four 

reporting forms before submission of 

this Final Rule. DOL estimated the 

increase in paperwork burden to be 

1000 hours. The SCSEP is designed so 

that SCSEP funds cover the vast 

majority of the costs of implementing 

this program, including the costs of 

reporting the volunteer work indicator. 

We reached a similar conclusion in our 

review of the August 14, 2008 NPRM. At 

that time, the Department requested 

public comments on the potential 

economic impact that the rule may have 

on small entities and did not receive 

any comments on this question. For 

these reasons, the Department has 

determined and certifies that this Final 

Rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

OMB has also determined that this 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ for purposes 

of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 

Public Law 104–121 (1996) (codified in 

scattered sections at 5 U.S.C.). SBREFA 

requires agencies to take certain actions 

when a ‘‘major rule’’ is promulgated. 5 

U.S.C. 801. SBREFA defines a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as one that will have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more; that will result in a major 

increase in costs or prices for, among 

other things, State or local government 

agencies; or that will significantly and 

adversely affect the business climate. 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

This Final Rule will not significantly 

or adversely affect the business climate. 

First, the rule will not create a 

significant impact on the business 

climate because, as discussed above, 

SCSEP grantees are governmental 

jurisdictions and not-for-profit 

enterprises. Moreover, any secondary 

impact of the program on the business 

community would not be adverse. To 

the contrary, we believe the SCSEP 

assists the business community by 

training older Americans to participate 

in the workforce and benefits the overall 

community by providing volunteer 

work opportunities. 

The Final Rule will also not result in 

a major increase in costs or prices for 

States or local government agencies. The 

SCSEP has no impact on prices. Finally, 

this Final Rule will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. 

Therefore, because none of the 

definitions of ‘‘major rule’’ apply in this 

instance, this Final Rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ for SBREFA purposes. 

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

As stated in the SBREFA analysis, this 

Final Rule will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. However, the rule does raise 

novel policy issues about implementing 

an additional performance indicator on 

volunteer work in the SCSEP. The key 

policy change reinforces the dual 

purpose of the SCSEP by counting those 

who begin performing volunteer work— 

or who perform volunteer work in lieu 

of or in addition to unsubsidized 

employment—after participating in 

SCSEP. Therefore, the Department has 

submitted this Final Rule to OMB. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., include minimizing the 

paperwork burden on affected entities. 

The PRA requires certain actions before 

an agency can adopt or revise a 

collection of information, including 

publishing in the Federal Register a 

summary of the collection of 

information and a brief description of 

the need for and proposed use of the 

information and requesting public 

comments. 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

Because the 2006 OAA necessitated 

changes in many of the SCSEP forms 

used by grantees before the effective 

date of the Act, in July 2007 the 

Department submitted to OMB for 

review and approval, in accordance 

with PRA § 3507(d), a modification to 

the SCSEP information collection 

requirements. The four-year strategy 

newly required by the 2006 OAA (see 

§ 641.302) was accounted for in that 

PRA submission. OMB approved the 

SCSEP PRA submission (OMB control 

number 1205–0040) in October 2007 

and again (without the added form and 

burden estimate for the volunteer work 

indicator) on April 18, 2011, extending 

the expiration date through April 30, 

2014. For more information on this 

request, please visit: www.reginfo.gov. 

This Final Rule introduces new 

information collection requirements and 

thus requires a PRA submission. 

A Federal agency generally cannot 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information, and the public is generally 

not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless it is 

approved by the OMB under the PRA 

and displays a currently valid OMB 

Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information if the 

collection of information does not 

display a valid OMB Control Number. 

See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. 

The Department has submitted the 

information collection contained in this 

final rule for review under the PRA to 

the OMB, as part of a revision to Control 

Number 1205–0040; however, OMB has 

not yet completed its review. The 

Department will publish an additional 

Notice to announce OMB’s action on the 

request and when the information 

collection requirements will take effect. 

Public Comments: 

In the NPRM stage, the Department 

requested comments on the burdens 

imposed by information collections 

contained in this rule. The Department 

received eleven comments expressing 

concern about the burden on grantees 

and/or sub-grantees to collect 

information about former participants’ 

volunteer activities post-SCSEP. The 

Department shares this concern and 

intends to preserve a balance between 

the value of information gained from 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4660 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

this additional indicator and the 

burdens of extra data collection. This 

indicator is an additional indicator, not 

a core indicator, and thus has no goalsetting, no data validation, and no 

negative repercussions attached to it for 

the sponsors involved. This additional 

indicator is designed so that sponsors 

can obtain the required information 

during intake, at exit, and through brief 

and non-burdensome follow-up efforts 

with participants after their SCSEP 

service. While the Department 

understands that sponsors may not be 

able to reach every participant after exit 

from the program, we find that the data 

obtained through low burden follow-up 

efforts will provide valuable 

information to justify the minimal 

increase in burden. 

While much of the information 

provided to OMB in support of the 

information collection request appears 

in this preamble, interested parties may 

obtain a copy of the full supporting 

statement by sending a written request 

to the mail address shown in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this preamble or by visiting the http:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain 

Web site. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.) requires an agency to 

‘‘prepare a written statement’’ providing 

specific information if the rulemaking 

‘‘is likely to result in promulgation of 

any rule that includes any Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more’’ 

in any 1 year. Since the Department has 

determined that this Final Rule does not 

include any Federal mandate that may 

result in increased expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million, it has not prepared the written 

statement under section 1532 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

The Department has reviewed this 

Final Rule in accordance with Executive 

Order 13132 on federalism, and has 

determined that the Final Rule does not 

have ‘‘policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ As explained at § 1(a) of 

the Executive Order, ‘‘ ‘Policies that 

have federalism implications’ refers to 

regulations, legislative comments or 

proposed legislation, and other policy 

statements or actions that have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This rule does 

not have such ‘‘substantial direct 

effects’’ because it does not preempt any 

State law, nor interfere with functions 

essential to the State’s separate and 

independent existence, nor impose any 

form or method of program 

administration on the States. In 

addition, this new measure is 

reasonably related to the purpose of the 

SCSEP program, which is a grant 

program that flows directly from the 

2006 OAA, in which State participation 

is voluntary. Therefore, this Final Rule 

does not constitute a ‘‘substantial direct 

effect’’ on the States, nor will it alter the 

relationship, power, or responsibilities 

between the Federal and State 

governments; the relationship, power, or 

responsibilities were already established 

in the authorizing legislation. 

F. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 concerns the 

protection of children from 

environmental health risks and safety 

risks. This Final Rule addresses the 

SCSEP, a program for older Americans, 

and has no impact on safety or health 

risks to children. 

G. Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175 addresses the 

unique relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribal 

governments. The order requires Federal 

agencies to take certain actions when 

regulations have ‘‘tribal implications.’’ 

Required actions include consulting 

with tribal governments before 

promulgating a regulation with tribal 

implications and preparing a tribal 

impact statement. The order defines 

regulations as having ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ when they have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

The Department has reviewed this 

Final Rule and concludes that it does 

not have tribal implications. Although 

tribes are sub-recipients of national 

SCSEP grant funds, this rule will not 

have a substantial direct effect on those 

tribes because, as outlined in the 

Regulatory Flexibility section of the 

preamble, there are only minor 

additional costs associated with 

implementing this Final Rule and these 

are covered by grant funds. This 

regulation does not affect the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the tribes, nor does it 

affect the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and tribal governments. 

Accordingly, we conclude that this 

Final Rule does not have tribal 

implications for the purposes of 

Executive Order 13175. 

H. Environmental Impact Assessment 

The Department has reviewed this 

Final Rule in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 

1500), and the Department’s NEPA 

procedures (29 CFR part 11). This Final 

Rule will not have a significant impact 

on the quality of the human 

environment, and thus the Department 

has not prepared an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 

I. Assessment of Federal Regulations 

and Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus 

Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681), 

requires the Department to assess the 

impact of this Final Rule on family wellbeing. An agency that determines that 

the rule will have a negative affect on 

families must support the rule with an 

adequate rationale. 

The Department has assessed this 

Final Rule and determines that it will 

not have a negative effect on families. 

Indeed, we believe the SCSEP 

strengthens families by providing job 

training and support services to lowincome older Americans. 

J. Executive Order 12630 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights, is not relevant to this Final Rule 

because the rule does not involve 

implementation of a policy with takings 

implications. 

K. Executive Order 12988 

This Final Rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and 

will not unduly burden the Federal 

court system. The regulation has been 

written so as to minimize litigation and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, and has been reviewed 

carefully to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4661 

L. Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 is not relevant 

to this Final Rule because the rule will 

not have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

M. Plain Language 

The Department drafted this rule in 

plain language. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 641 

Aged, Employment, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—Labor, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Department of Labor 

amends 20 CFR part 641 as follows: 

PART 641—PROVISIONS GOVERNING 

THE SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE 

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 641 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 641.140 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘additional indicators’’ 

and adding the definition of ‘‘volunteer 

work’’ to read as follows: 

§ 641.140 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

* * * * * 

Additional indicators mean retention 

in unsubsidized employment for 1 year; 

satisfaction of participants, employers 

and their host agencies with their 

experiences and the services provided; 

entry into volunteer work; and any other 

indicators of performance that the 

Secretary determines to be appropriate 

to evaluate services and performance. 

(OAA § 513(b)(2)). 

* * * * * 

Volunteer work means: 

(1) For purposes of § 641.140 of this 

part, activities or work that former 

participants perform for a public agency 

of a State, local government or 

intergovernmental agency, or for a 

charity or not-for-profit organization, 

including faith-based or communitybased organizations, for civic, 

charitable, or for humanitarian reasons, 

and without promise, expectation, or 

receipt of compensation; 

(2) For informational reporting 

purposes, volunteer work also can 

include similar activities that a former 

participant performs on his or her own 

that are not conducted through a formal 

organization or agency as long as those 

activities are not performed for a 

member of the former participant’s 

family or of the individual’s own 

household. These types of volunteer 

activities will not be included in the 

calculation of the ‘‘entry into volunteer 

work’’ indicator under § 641.140. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 641.700 by adding 

paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 641.700 What performance measures/ 

indicators apply to SCSEP grantees? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) The Secretary has designated entry 

into volunteer work as an additional 

indicator. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 641.710 by adding 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 641.710 How are the performance 

indicators defined? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) ‘‘Entry into volunteer work’’ is 

defined by the formula: Of those not 

engaged in volunteer work at the time 

of entry into the SCSEP, the number of 

such participants who perform 

volunteer work in the first quarter after 

the exit quarter, divided by the number 

of such participants who exit during the 

quarter. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

January 2012. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training, Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1324 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 

BOARD 

29 CFR Part 102 

Revisions of Regulations Concerning 

Procedures for Filing Initial FOIA 

Requests 

AGENCY: National Labor Relations 

Board. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations 

Board (NLRB or Board) is amending 

regulations concerning the procedures 

for filing initial Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) requests. The revisions 

require that all FOIA requests for 

records located in Washington, DC, be 

made to the NLRB FOIA Officer in 

Washington, DC. 

DATES: Effective date: January 31, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary, 

National Labor Relations Board, Room 

1600, 1099 14th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20570–00001, 

Telephone (202) 273–1067 (this is not a 

toll-free number), 1–866–315–6572 

(TTY/TDD), email address 

Lester.Heltzer@nlrb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Current Regulation 

Section 102.117(c)(1) provides in part 

that ‘‘If the request is made for records 

in a Regional or Subregional Office of 

the Agency, it should be made to that 

Regional or Subregional Office; if for 

records in the Office of the General 

Counsel and located in Washington, DC, 

it should be made to the Freedom of 

Information Officer, Office of the 

General Counsel, Washington, DC; if for 

records in the offices of the Board or the 

Inspector General in Washington, DC, to 

the Executive Secretary of the Board, 

Washington, DC.’’ 

II. Revision 

FOIA requesters seeking records that 

are located in Washington, DC may not 

know whether the requested records are 

in the Office of the General Counsel, the 

Offices of the Board, or the Office of the 

Inspector General, and, accordingly, 

may misdirect the request. Currently, 

when a request is misdirected, the 

receiving office forwards it to the 

appropriate office and notifies the 

requester that it has done so. This 

requires a response by both the 

receiving and the appropriate offices, 

and delays the final response to the 

FOIA requester. By requiring that all 

requests for records located in 

Washington, DC be made to the NLRB 

FOIA Officer, a newly-created position, 

requesters need not know in which 

office the records they seek are located, 

and their requests will be processed 

more efficiently and expeditiously. 

III. Administrative Procedure Act 

Because the change involves rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice, the Agency is not required to 

publish it for comment under Section 

553 of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 553). 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required for procedural 

rules, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) pertaining to regulatory 

flexibility analysis do not apply to these 

rules. However, even if the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act were to apply, the NLRB 

certifies that these changes will not have 

a significant economic impact on small 

business entities since the changes make 

it easier for all FOIA requesters to file 

their requests. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES