Date Range All

Date/Time Idea 

Number Author Author Email

4/8/2011 17:57 122 rubdel rubdel@gmail.com

4/8/2011 16:32 121 mfreedman mfreedman@uschamber.com
4/8/2011 15:34 120 gyoung gyoung@eric.org

4/8/2011 15:00 119 halprin.khlaw halprin.khlaw@gmail.com
4/8/2011 14:50 118 laurie_miller laurie_miller@americanchemistry.com
4/8/2011 14:32 117 Community 

Member dvagins@dcaclu.org
4/8/2011 14:13 116 fgraves fgraves@nwlc.org
4/8/2011 14:06 115 fgraves fgraves@nwlc.org
4/8/2011 14:01 114 fgraves fgraves@nwlc.org
4/8/2011 13:53 113 Community 

Member nancy.hammer@shrm.org

4/8/2011 13:40 112 richardson.sus

an

richardson.susan@dol.gov
4/8/2011 13:28 111 davisfl davisfl@gmail.com
4/8/2011 12:40 110 jhammersla jhammersla@abcstaff.org
4/8/2011 12:36 109 blurye blurye@aflcio.org
4/8/2011 12:06 108 lflanagan lflanagan@dclrs.com

4/8/2011 10:52 107 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net
4/8/2011 10:50 106 twilder twilder@ahip.org

4/8/2011 10:44 105 twilder twilder@ahip.org
4/8/2011 10:43 104 twilder twilder@ahip.org

4/8/2011 10:42 103 twilder twilder@ahip.org
4/8/2011 10:40 102 twilder twilder@ahip.org

4/8/2011 10:38 101 twilder twilder@ahip.org
4/8/2011 10:36 100 twilder twilder@ahip.org
4/8/2011 10:05 99 Community 

Member blawrence@aila.org
4/8/2011 9:51 98 michael.peters

on

michael.peterson@hrpolicy.org
4/8/2011 9:08 97 jcasper jcasper@nssga.org

4/8/2011 8:42 96 Community 

Member cooper.leslie.c@dol.gov

4/8/2011 7:31 95 rachelb rachelb@nafsa.org
4/8/2011 7:06 94 Community 

Member quamie@civilrights.org

4/7/2011 18:35 93 Community 

Member blawrence@aila.org
4/7/2011 13:49 92 mjohnson mjohnson@nationalpartnership.org
4/7/2011 11:36 91 Community 

Member bach308.22@hotmail.com
4/7/2011 11:09 90 oconnorta oconnorta@gmail.com

4/7/2011 10:03 89 Community 

Member Liska@atlanticbb.net
4/7/2011 9:39 88 Community 

Member Liska@atlanticbb.net

4/7/2011 7:26 86 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net
4/6/2011 17:13 85 jminear jminear@lawmh.com
4/6/2011 15:15 84 jminear jminear@lawmh.com
4/6/2011 15:11 83 Community 

Member shannonsalinas@acli.com
4/6/2011 15:07 82 Community 

Member shannonsalinas@acli.com

4/5/2011 13:04 81 Community 

Member rmatuga@nahb.com
4/5/2011 8:45 80 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 8:10 79 blawrence blawrence@aila.org
4/5/2011 7:55 78 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 7:49 77 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 7:42 76 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 7:24 75 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 7:19 74 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 7:15 73 blawrence blawrence@aila.org
4/5/2011 7:07 72 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 7:03 71 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/4/2011 10:33 70 John wagehour@hotmail.com

4/2/2011 8:51 69 tim.jowers tim.jowers@wachovia.com
4/1/2011 11:24 68 JEANPUBLIC JEANPUBLIC@YAHOO.COM

4/1/2011 11:13 66 JEANPUBLIC JEANPUBLIC@YAHOO.COM

4/1/2011 10:00 65 rbowser rbowser@ufcw.org
3/31/2011 14:41 61 brian brian@fsround.org

3/31/2011 13:02 60 jason.schwartz jason.schwartz@nyu.edu
3/31/2011 11:06 59 mkastner mkastner@tfi.org
3/31/2011 10:33 58 claude.golden claude.golden@gmail.com
3/31/2011 6:56 57 pseminar pseminar@aflcio.org

3/31/2011 6:27 56 barrywalke barrywalke@gmail.com
3/30/2011 18:54 55 jkyger jkyger@printing.org

3/30/2011 12:24 54 Kevin Andrews kevina@murthy.com

3/30/2011 11:07 53 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com
3/30/2011 11:06 52 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com

3/30/2011 11:05 51 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com

3/30/2011 10:49 50 jerilyn.whitmer jerilyn.whitmer@cceq.org

3/30/2011 10:24 49 dsivin dsivin@uaw.net
3/30/2011 10:23 48 dsivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 10:20 47 dsivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 10:19 46 dsivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 10:14 45 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 10:13 44 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 10:11 43 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 10:09 42 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 8:49 41 elkfever2 elkfever2@hotmail.com
3/30/2011 8:44 40 nancy.hamme r

nancy.hammer@shrm.org
3/30/2011 8:23 39 Liska Liska@atlanticbb.net

3/30/2011 8:08 38 katherine_e_ro

driguez katherine_e_rodriguez@yahoo.com

3/30/2011 7:50 37 katherine_e_ro

driguez katherine_e_rodriguez@yahoo.com
3/30/2011 7:45 36 dnershi dnershi@siop.org

3/30/2011 6:07 35 Robert.Richter Robert.Richter@gmail.com

3/30/2011 6:06 34 cdavis cdavis@gfpension.com

3/30/2011 6:04 33 Robert.Richter Robert.Richter@gmail.com

3/30/2011 6:02 32 Robert.Richter Robert.Richter@gmail.com
3/29/2011 20:28 31 elkfever2 elkfever2@hotmail.com

3/29/2011 12:49 30 Joy.Root Joy.Root@SecurityBenefit.com

3/29/2011 11:55 29 holly.foster holly.foster@cnb.com

3/29/2011 11:44 28 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com

3/29/2011 11:43 27 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com
3/29/2011 11:42 26 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com

3/29/2011 11:41 25 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com

3/29/2011 11:40 24 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com

3/29/2011 11:39 23 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com

3/29/2011 11:38 22 Jane.Galvin Jane.Galvin@bcbsa.com
3/29/2011 9:55 21 tsedeye tsedeye@nelp.org

3/29/2011 9:40 20 nick.delvecchi

o

nick.delvecchio@lawsonproducts.com

3/29/2011 9:17 19 Craig Hoffman choffman@asppa.org

3/27/2011 12:13 18 jfrederick023 jfrederick023@gmail.com
3/27/2011 12:10 17 jfrederick023 jfrederick023@gmail.com

3/25/2011 10:22 16 lrm464 lrm464@gmail.com

3/23/2011 11:37 14 halprin.khlaw halprin.khlaw@gmail.com

3/22/2011 18:36 13 steve steve@krafchick.com

3/22/2011 10:40 12 Kwm510190 Kwm510190@aol.com
3/21/2011 11:47 11 tbarrie tbarrie@yahoo.com

3/18/2011 13:28 10 denischuh denischuh@yahoo.com

3/18/2011 8:44 9 kogel73 kogel73@gmail.com
3/18/2011 8:36 8 kogel73 kogel73@gmail.com

3/18/2011 5:21 7 keriannegray keriannegray@yahoo.com

3/17/2011 9:12 6 Mark Wilson mwilson@appliedeconstrategies.com

3/17/2011 6:57 5 rclegg rclegg@ceousa.org

3/17/2011 6:10 4 tom.cloutier tom.cloutier@annapolisproduce.com
Category Net Votes Vote Up Vote 

Down Comments Title

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

Employer tax 

on labor

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

U.S. Chamber 

Regulatory 

Submissions
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

Retrospective 

review under 

Executive Order 

13536

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

OSHA's 

Walking/Workin

g Surfaces and 

Fall Protection 

Standards
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

1100

ACC 

Comments on 

Retrospective 

Review of DOL 

OSHA 

Regulations
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0000

Comments 

from the 

American Civil 

Liberties Union
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1100

National 

Women's Law 

Center 

Comments on 

Specific 

Regulations
What data or indicators suggest that 

the estimated costs and benefits of a 

regulation should be reviewed?

1100

National 

Women's Law 

Center 

Comments on 

Costs and 

Benefits
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

1100

National 

Women's Law 

Center 

Comments on 

Review 

Priorities
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0 0 0 0

SHRM 

Response to 

Executive Order 

13563

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

Modification 

and Updating of 

CFR 20, parts 1 

to 25, OWCP
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0000

ASA comments 

on DOL's RFI 

Implementing 

Executive Order 

13563
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

3300

American 

Benefits 

Council 

comments
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1100

AFL-CIO 

Comments on 

WHD, ETA & 

EBSA 

regulations
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

2 2 0 0

H-2B Final Rule 

and H-2B 

Proposed Rule

How can DOL best assure that its 

regulations are guided by objective 

scientific evidence?

1 1 0 0

OSHA Related 

Comment from 

UAW
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

Regulations for 

Review

What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

0 0 0 0

Use of 

Electronic 

Disclosures
What regulations should be reviewed 

due to conflicts or inconsistencies 

among its agencies or with other 

federal agencies?

0 0 0 0

What 

Regulations 

Should Be 

Reviewed for 

Conflicts

How should the department capture 

changes in firm and market behavior 

in response to a regulation?

1 1 0 0

Ways to 

Capture 

Changes in 

Firm or Market 

Behavior
What strategies exist for increasing 

the flexibility of regulations? 0 0 0 0

Strategies for 

Increasing 

Flexibility of 

Reglations

What data or indicators suggest that 

the estimated costs and benefits of a 

regulation should be reviewed?

0 0 0 0

Data or 

INdicators on 

Estimated 

Costs and 

Benefits
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0000

Process to 

Prioritize Rules 

for Review
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1100

Comments 

from the 

American 

Immigration 

Lawyers 

Association
What regulations should be reviewed 

due to conflicts or inconsistencies 

among its agencies or with other 

federal agencies?

0000

Badly Outdated 

FLSA Regs 

Need Serious 

Consideration 

and Revision
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

NSSGA 

Recommendati

ons for 

Regulatory 

Reform

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0 0 0 3

Comment from 

Investment 

Company 

Institute

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

NAFSA: 

Association of 

International 

Educators 

Comments
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

5 4 1 0

Commnts on 

DOL's 

Retrospective 

Review

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

3 3 0 0

Prioritizing 

Regulations for 

Review
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

4221

NPWF 

Recommendati

ons
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

4040

Amend claims 

regulation to 

notify when 

stat. of 

limiataions 

ends
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

8 6 2 0

OSHA Should 

Reinstate 

proposed Noise 

Interpretation 

and MSD “che

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

4 3 1 0

Negotiated 

Rulemaking on 

29 CFR 

541.200(a)(3) 

and 541.202
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

2 1 1 0

Methodological 

Changes 

Needed to 

Improve Wage 

DB Surveys

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

4 2 2 0

OSHA related 

comment from 

UAW
How can DOL best assure that its 

regulations are guided by objective 

scientific evidence?

2112

Prevailing 

Wage 

Determinations
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1100

PERM Labor 

Certification 

Sunday 

Advertisements
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

2200

ACLI 

comments: 

modification of 

various 

regulations 

under ERISA
What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

2 2 0 0

ACLI 

comments: 

electronic 

dislcosure, 

notice 

requirements

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

NAHB 

Recommendati

ons for 

Improving 

OSHA 

Regulations
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0 H-2A Program

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor Condition 

ApplicationsNotice/ShortTerm 

Placement
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

4 4 0 0

Labor 

CertificationAudit 

Procedures

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor 

CertificationProcessing 

Times

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor Condition 

Applications-

"Obviously 

Inaccurate"

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor 

CertificationSupervised 

Recruitment

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor 

CertificationAnti-Fraud 

Regulations

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor 

CertificationReinstate 

"Harmless 

Error"
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor 

CertificationSunday Ads

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

1 1 0 0

Labor 

CertificationRecuitment for 

College and 

Univ. Teachers

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

Apparent Error 

in 29 C.F.R. 

785.36

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

2 1 1 0

Enforce L1 and 

H1 regulations
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

4 1 3 1

STOP H1B H2B 

+ PROGRAMS 

THAT GIVE 

AWAY 

AMERICAN 

JOBS

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

5 1 4 1

STOP 

ALLOWING 

FOEIGNES TO 

COME TAKE 

AMERICAN 

JOBS

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

4 2 2 0

COMMENTS 

OSHA 

REGULATORY 

PROGRAM
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

2 2 0 0

RFI 

Implementing 

Executive Order 

13563

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0 0 0 0

Comments on 

Labor's 

Retrospective 

Review Plan
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

41 4010

"Process Safety 

Management” 

Standard 

Interpretation
What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

0000

OSHA 

Regulatory 

Improvement
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

9 6 3 0

OSHA needs 

stronger safety 

and health 

standards 

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

2 2 0 0

Improvement of 

Alien Labor 

Certification 

Process
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

Clarify § 

825.218 

Substantial and 

grievous 

economic injury 

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

6 5 1 0

Labor 

Certification 

Fees for 

Schedule A 

cases 

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0 0 0 0

Mental Health 

Parity 

Regulations
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0 0 0 0

Mental health 

Parity 

Regulations

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0 0 0 0 MH Parity

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

0 0 0 0

Review the 

Uniform 

Guidelines on 

Employee 

Selection 

Procedures

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

6 5 1 0

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW
What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

4 2 2 1

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW

What regulations should be reviewed 

due to conflicts or inconsistencies 

among its agencies or with other 

federal agencies?

4 2 2 0

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW

What regulations should be reviewed 

due to conflicts or inconsistencies 

among its agencies or with other 

federal agencies?

2 1 1 0

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW

How should the department capture 

changes in firm and market behavior 

in response to a regulation?

2 1 1 1

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW

What strategies exist for increasing 

the flexibility of regulations? 2 1 1 0

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW

What data or indicators suggest that 

the estimated costs and benefits of a 

regulation should be reviewed?

2 1 1 0

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

3 2 1 0

OSHA Related 

Reg Review 

Comment from 

UAW

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

4 3 1 1

1904.36 

Prohibition 

against 

discrimination
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

7701

Public & 

Stakeholders 

need more time 

to provide 

meaningful 

input
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

3 2 1 0

FMLA Transfer 

to Alternate 

Position for 

Unschd Intermit 

Leave

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

7 6 1 1

29 USC 657 - 

Family 

involvement in 

Investigations 

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

6 5 1 1

Amend 29 USC 

666 - Penalties
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

0 0 0 0

Uniform 

Guidelines on 

Employee 

Selection 

Procedures 

Need Review

What regulations should be reviewed 

due to conflicts or inconsistencies 

among its agencies or with other 

federal agencies?

10 7 3 1

Financial 

literacy

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

40 38 2 0

ADP-ACP 

testing deadline 

of 2 1/2 months

What data or indicators suggest that 

the estimated costs and benefits of a 

regulation should be reviewed?

14 12 2 2

5500 

revamping

What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

12 10 2 0

Electronic 

communication

s and 

signatures
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

3 3 0 1

1910.1200(h)(3

) Training. 

Employee 

training shall 

include at lea

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

32 11 21 2

5500 

preparation

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

58 6 52 0

Summary Plan 

Description 

should include 

investment 

education

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

11 6 5 0 SPDs

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

2 1 1 0

HIPAA and 

Wellness
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

3 0 3 0 HRAs

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

3 2 1 0

WHCRA and 

Cobra Notices

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

8 7 1 0 SMM Rules

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

37 35 2 0 SPD

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

34 31 3 0

Erisa 

Disclosure
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

21 19 2 2

29 CFR 516; 29 

CFR 522 et 

seq; 29 CFR 

791.2; 29 CFR 

541.600

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

9 6 3 1 2012 Budget

What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

471 465 6 1

ASPPA 

recommendatio

ns: 403b 

contracts, 

electronic 

media & VFCP

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

20 16 4 3

increase 

worker/union 

involvement in 

OSHA citation 

settlement
What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

11 8 3 1

expand 1904.36 

discrimination 

to allow 

citations

What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

271 269 2 0

employee 

benefit 

disclosures 

through 

electronic 

media

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

7 2 5 1

Revoke 29 CFR 

1910.261(b) (1)

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

4 1 3 1

Amend 29 CFR 

2560.503-1 to 

include a 

treating 

physician rule

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

18 16 2 0

Davis Bacon 

Improvements
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

27 22 5 2

Proposed rules 

for EEOICPA 

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

14 12 2 0

29 CFR Part 

825 Section 

202, 113, and 

115

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

25 4 21 0

Davis Bacon 

Works
What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

20 3 17 1

Davis Bacon 

works

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

37 28 9 1

Modification to 

Davis Bacon 

Law needed

What regulations could achieve the 

intended result using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative 

techniques?

9 4 5 0

Review 

Definition of 

Helpers to 

Increase Job 

Opportunities

What DOL regulations, guidance, 

interpretations should be considered 

for review, expansion or 

modification?

7 4 3 0

Revise EO 

11246 

regulations

What process should be used to 

prioritize existing regulations for 

retrospective review?

5 4 1 2

Unemployment 

Decision 

Update
Details (Full Comment)

Since it appears that employers try to cheat the tax system by not paying taxes 

on contract labor, the DOL should issue a law that requires payment of taxes on 

all labor costs, both recognized employees and contract labor. The States would 

save so much money on not having to investigate businesses to find out if they 

are properly reporting labor for UI tax purposes and the states and Federal 

government would win.

April 8, 2011

The Honorable Seth Harris

Deputy Secretary of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington DC 20210

Re: Reducing Regulatory Burden; Retrospective Review Under E.O. 13563; 76 

Fed. Reg. 15224 (March 21, 2011)

Dear Deputy Secretary Harris:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation, 

represents the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations 

of every size, sector, and region. Employers of all sizes and industries are 

affected by Department of Labor (Department, DOL) regulations under laws 

such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Family and Medical Leave 

Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, ERISA, and the recently enacted Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. Accordingly, the Chamber is keenly 

interested in efforts by the Department to comply with President Obama’s 

Executive Order 13563 and the mandate in Section 6 for “Retrospective 

Analyses of Existing Rules.”

Executive Order 13563 and the Department of Labor’s Request

E.O. 13563 expresses the President’s views on how regulations should be 

promulgated and what procedures agencies should follow in seeking input and 

justifying their regulations. It builds on, and largely replicates E.O. 12866 issued 

by President Clinton. Section 6 of E.O. 13563 specifies that agencies are to 

“consider how best to promote retrospective analys[es] of rules that may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned,” 

and that within 120 days of January 18, 2011 agencies are to submit plans on 
April 8, 2011

Submitted through the Labor Department’s eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.dol.gov/regulations/regreview.htm

e. christi cunningham

Associate Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Policy

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Room S-2312

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Retrospective Review under Executive Order 13536

Dear Ms. cunningham:

We are writing on behalf of The ERISA Industry Committee (“ERIC”) to respond 

to the Department of Labor’s request for information on ways in which the 

Department can reduce the burden associated with its regulations. The 

Department’s request reflects the President’s Executive Order 13536, “Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which requires federal agencies to review 

existing regulations to determine how they can be made more effective or less 

burdensome.

ERIC’s Interest in the Retrospective Review

ERIC is a nonprofit association committed to the advancement of the 

employee retirement, health, incentive, and welfare benefit plans of America’s 

largest employers. ERIC’s members provide comprehensive retirement, health, 

and other benefits directly to tens of millions of active and retired workers and 

their families. These benefit plans are extensively regulated by the Department 

of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, as well as by other federal 

agencies. 

ERIC’s members strongly support the goal of protecting workers’ benefits. In 

order to compete in a global economy, however, ERIC’s members must limit the 

resources they spend on their benefit programs. 

As federal regulations become more complex and pervasive, ERIC’s members 

spend a larger and larger portion of their available time, effort, and financial 

This comment addresses OSHA requirements governing fall protection and 

ladder use when a chimney sweep is performing one-person, roof-top tasks that 

take less than two hours on a typical single family residential structure. Virtually 

no single family residence has anchors to support fall protection. Therefore, for 

these tasks, the use of physical fall protection devices is technically and/or 

economically infeasible and would pose a greater hazard than continuing to 

follow industry safe work practices. The use of a monitor is economically 

infeasible for a one-person task. The requirements of 1926.1053(b)(21) and (22) 

are technically and/or economically infeasible and pose a greater hazard if 

interpreted to preclude the sweep from manually moving a ridge hook ladder 

from the ground to the roof as follows. The sweep would stage the ridge ladder 

in a vertical position next to the ground ladder, climb up the ground ladder, grasp 

the ridge ladder at its balance point with one hand and slide the other hand up 

the opposite side rail of the ground ladder while climbing to the roof, then lay 

down the ridge ladder on the roof at its balance point and slide it up the roof.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

input to the Department of Labor (DOL) on the Agency’s plan to retrospectively 

review its regulations. In ACC’s view, the retrospective review is a key element 

to ensure that DOL’s existing regulatory programs meet their objectives in the 

most efficient and effective way possible. The process is also a key mechanism 

to ensure that DOL’s regulatory requirements do not unnecessarily burden the 

U.S. economy, the competitiveness of U.S. industry, and the ability to create and 

maintain jobs. Where examples are provided in our comments, they focus on 

Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) regulations.

As our nation continues to climb out of recession, the manufacturing industry is 

the primary area where new investment will help create and maintain American 

jobs. Chemistry plays a key role throughout our economy as a building block for 

other manufactured goods. In fact, chemistry touches ninety-six percent of all 

manufactured goods at some point of the production cycle. Nearly twenty-seven 

percent of U.S. GDP is generated from industries that rely on chemistry, 

covering a wide range from agriculture to oil and gas production, from 

semiconductors and electronics to textiles and vehicles, and from 

pharmaceuticals to residential and commercial energy efficiency products. More 

importantly, all chemical manufacturing facilities are subject to an array of DOLadministered regulatory programs. The business of chemistry is in a unique 

position to comment on DOL’s regulatory programs. 

DOL’s request for comment is focused on developing stakeholder input on 

DOL’s design and implementation of the retrospective analysis of existing rules 

required by Section 6 of Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 21, 2011). We are 

particularly pleased to note that the Agency contemplates a future, periodic 

review of its regulations. The discipline of a periodic review can go a long way 

toward ensuring that the important principles of regulatory reform and efficiency 

contained in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 are fully realized. 

It is of course not enough to simply conduct a periodic retrospective review of 

DOL’s body of regulation, either in a single program area or across the Agency’s 
April 8, 2011

Submitted Via http://dolregs.ideascale.com/ 

The Honorable Hilda Solis 

Secretary of Labor 

United States Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20210-0001

Re: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Plan for Analysis of Significant Regulations 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13563

Dear Secretary Solis:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), over half a million 

members, countless additional activists and supporters, and fifty-three affiliates 

nationwide, we write to respond to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (the 

Department) request for public comment regarding the review of significant 

regulations. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important 

process. 

Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama on January 18, 2011, calls 

on agencies to improve their regulatory processes and to develop protocols for 

periodic review and improvement of significant regulations. 76 Fed Reg. 3821 

(Jan. 21, 2011). This process will aid the Department in eliminating ineffective 

regulations and developing new ones that better serve the Department's mission.

In the review process, the ACLU encourages the Department to ensure that all 

regulations provide clarity and support vigorous enforcement of employment 

laws. Along these lines, we ask that the Department issue new or updated 

regulations in several areas:
The National Women’s Law Center (the Center) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the Department of Labor’s processes for reviewing significant 

regulations. The Center is a nonprofit organization that has worked since 1972 

to expand the possibilities for women and girls in the areas of education and 

employment, family economic security, and health. The Center has long worked 

to remove barriers to women’s participation in the workplace, and it is a strong 

advocate for the strengthening and enforcement of our nation’s employment 

laws. 

The Center offers the following comments for the Department’s consideration, 

consistent with the Department’s request for suggestions regarding the 

expansion or modification of existing regulations:

I. THE CENTER URGES THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT 

COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS TO RESCIND 2006 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ON 

COMPENSATION DISCRIMINATION AND REINSTATE THE EQUAL 

OPPORTUNITY SURVEY.

Women working full-time, year-round in 2009 were paid only 77 cents, on 

average, for every dollar earned by men. NWLC calculations from U.S. Census 

Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2010 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement, Table PINC-05: Work Experience in 2009 – People 15 Years Old 

and Over by Total Money Earnings in 2009, Age, Race, Hispanic Origin, and 

Sex, available at 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/perinc/toc.htm (last visited 

Mar. 10, 2011). Even after controlling for factors believed to influence 

pay—including workers’ qualifications, personal preferences, job responsibilities, 

occupation type, and industry—authoritative studies conclude that an 

unexplained earnings gap between men and women remains, some of which can 

fairly be attributed to discrimination. See Cheryl Travis et al., Tracking the 

Gender Pay Gap: A Case Study, 33 PSYCHOL. WOMEN Q. 410, 410-11 (2009) 

(citing studies). 
The National Women’s Law Center (the Center) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the Department of Labor’s processes for reviewing significant 

regulations. The Center is a nonprofit organization that has worked since 1972 

to expand the possibilities for women and girls in the areas of education and 

employment, family economic security, and health. The Center has long worked 

to remove barriers to women’s participation in the workplace, and it is a strong 

advocate for the strengthening and enforcement of our nation’s employment 

laws. 

I. THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 

SIGNIFICANT REGULATIONS MUST ACCOUNT FOR VALUES SUCH AS 

EQUITY, HUMAN DIGNITY, FAIRNESS, AND DISTRIBUTIVE IMPACTS. 

The Center urges the Department, in weighing whether to revise or repeal 

existing regulations, to take into account, where permitted or required by law, not 

only traditional and quantifiable regulatory costs and benefits, but also critical 

values, such as “equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.” 

Exec. Order No. 13,563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821, 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive 

Order 13,563 explicitly permits agencies to consider these values, which it 

acknowledges may be “difficult or impossible to quantify,” in their regulatory 

review process. Id.; see also Memorandum from Cass R. Sunstein, 

Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to Heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies, and of Independent Regulatory Agencies, 

at 4 (Feb. 2, 2011), available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-10.pdf. 

Because that executive order makes retrospective analyses part of agencies’ 

regulatory review processes, the Center urges the Department to accord these 

values great weight as it considers whether existing regulations should be 

revised, expanded, or repealed. 

In addition, the Center urges the Department to continue to recognize the unique 

way in which it must conduct any cost-benefit analysis for existing regulations 

that interpret employment statutes. In many cases, Congress already struck a 
The National Women’s Law Center (the Center) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the Department of Labor’s processes for reviewing significant 

regulations. The Center is a nonprofit organization that has worked since 1972 

to expand the possibilities for women and girls in the areas of education and 

employment, family economic security, and health. The Center has long worked 

to remove barriers to women’s participation in the workplace, and it is a strong 

advocate for the strengthening and enforcement of our nation’s employment 

laws. 

The Center strongly urges the Department to incorporate into any plan for 

retrospective review significant discretion as to when and whether to revisit 

existing regulations. Such discretion is permissible under Executive Order 

13,563, which directs agencies to design their plans “consistent with . . . 

resources and regulatory priorities.” Exec. Order No. 13,563, 76 Fed. Reg. 

3821, 3822 (Jan. 21, 2011). Guidance regarding Executive Order 13,563 from 

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs encourages agencies to “engage 

in a retrospective analysis of the costs and benefits” of the regulations chosen 

for review. Memorandum from Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, to Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies, and of Independent Regulatory Agencies, at 4 (Feb. 2, 2011), 

available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-10.pdf. 

Of course the Department already assessed costs and benefits before adopting 

its regulations and has taken care to ensure that its regulations meet the needs 

of employers and employees with the goal of enhancing compliance with 

applicable laws, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. Thus, especially in light of the Department’s limited resources, 

the Center encourages the agency to be selective in its retrospective review. 

The Center also encourages the agency to consider, when assessing which 

existing regulations and how many to review, the impact such review will have 

on the agency’s ability to engage in new rulemakings, rather than revisions to or 

repeal of old rules. First, it must step up its efforts to enforce our nation’s 
April 8, 2011

These comments are submitted by the Society for Human Resource 

Management (SHRM) in response to the Notice published in the Federal 

Register by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on March 21, 2011, inviting 

public comment on “how the Department can improve any of its significant 

regulations by modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing them,” in 

response to President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 (Executive Order). 

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is the world’s largest 

association devoted to human resource management. Representing more than 

250,000 members in over 140 countries, the Society serves the needs of HR 

professionals and advances the interests of the HR profession. Founded in 

1948, SHRM has more than 575 affiliated chapters within the United States and 

subsidiary offices in China and India. 

The Executive Order is intended to increase the effectiveness of governmental 

regulation, while reducing the burden imposed by compliance with overlapping 

and many times obsolete requirements. As President Obama emphasized in 

announcing its implementation, 

This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our 

safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders 

a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated 

regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.

President Barack Obama, Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System, WALL 

ST. J., Jan. 11, 2011. 

DOL, like all Executive Branch departments and agencies, is required under 

the Executive Order to submit a preliminary plan for periodic review of existing 

significant regulations to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 

on or before May 18, 2011 (120 days from the January 18 issuance date) “under 

The Federal Regulations simply must be updated. This program costs 

taxpayers a lot of money.

Federal injured workers unfortunately have no incentive once they get injured 

and start receiving benefits to return to work. Their jobs now become how to 

stay out of work. State workers' compensation at least can settle claims. 

Federal workers can be on the system forever. There is a sense of entitlement. 

It is a good program but it is NOT a retirement program and unfortunately 

congressman and senators won't look to update this program because they get 

calls from their constiuents who are injured and collecting under this program. 

The congressman and senators should be aware that they don't get calls from 

their constituents who are working because they are working to fund this 

program. Although i am grateful for my job this program is shameful they way it 

is abused.
April 8, 2011 

E. Christi Cunningham

Associate Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Affairs 

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20210

Re:Reducing Regulatory Burden; DOL’s Retrospective Review Under E.O. 13563 

— Request for Information

Dear Ms. Cunningham:

The American Subcontractors Association, Inc. (ASA) is a national trade 

association representing more than 5,000 construction subcontractors, specialty 

contractors and suppliers. ASA members work in virtually all of the construction 

trades and on virtually every type of horizontal and vertical construction. ASA is 

dedicated to improving the business environment in the construction industry, 

and holds as a key value maintaining a safe and healthy work environment. ASA 

welcomes this opportunity to comment on Department of Labor (DOL) 

regulations as part of the agency’s retrospective review under Executive Order 

13563. 

ASA urges the U.S. Department of Labor to extend the comment period for its 

Request for Information by thirty (30) days in order to comply with the directive 

and spirit of E.O. 13563. This would give stakeholders more time to prepare 

thoughtful comments that will help the agency create “a regulatory system that 

protects public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting 

economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” 
The American Benefits Council submits the following comments to the 

Department of Labor in connection with its implementation of Executive Order 

13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President 

on January 18, 2011. 

Our comments cover the following issues:

- Electronic Delivery of Required Notices

- Elimination of Unnecessary or Superfluous Notices and Disclosures

- Serial Changes in the Regulatory Landscape

- Coordination of Regulatory Regimes

- Balancing Burdens Against Potential Benefits

The Council's comments can be accessed on our web site here:

http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/documents/regulatory-review_councildol040811.pdf

Questions and/or comments should be directed to:

American Benefits Council

jhammersla@abcstaff.org

202-289-6700
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations 

(“AFL-CIO”) submits these comments in response to the Department of Labor’s 

implementation of the President’s Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review.” The Executive Order directs agencies to develop a plan 

to determine whether its significant “regulations should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.” The AFLCIO and its 57 affiliates have a vital interest in in the implementation of the 

statutes administered by the Department of Labor and submits these comments, 

which are in addition to those submitted concerning OSHA.

The Executive Order and DOL’s inquiry appear to be focusing primarily on the 

burdens of regulations to business. That analysis was done at the time the 

regulations issued, and the protection of the American workforce should not be 

weakened. They are necessary to administer, among other statutes, the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, which protects workers unable to protect themselves from 

excessively low wages and controls employers’ demands for excessive hours 

through the overtime premium, and outlawing certain child labor practices; and 

the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974, which was designed to protect 

workers’ pensions and other benefits. The Department should remain focused on 

ensuring that workers reap the benefit of these statutes by enforcing the current 

regulations and promulgating new regulations to enhance enforcement of these 

statutes.

In this regard, the AFL-CIO urges the Department’s Wage and Hour Division 

(WHD), Employee Benefits Security Agency (EBSA) and Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) to issue the following regulations which have been 

pending or proposed:

•The “Right to Know” regulation. This regulation, which has been on the agenda 

since 2009, would assist the WHD in combatting the misclassification of workers 

as independent contractors. Updating the recordkeeping regulations at 29 

C.F.R. Part 516.2 to require an employer to notify an employee in writing of his 
April 8, 2011

The Honorable Hilda Solis

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretary Solis:

The H-2B Workforce Coalition is comprised of seasonal employers and their 

representatives from the lodging, landscaping, seafood, restaurant, tourism, 

amusement parks, and other industries. Our members are predominately 

comprised of small seasonal businesses that have been struggling during the 

recession. For this reason, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the 

dialogue about the Department of Labor’s implementation of Executive Order 

13563, entitled, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review." We appreciate 

the President’s commitment to addressing excessively burdensome regulations.

The ability of seasonal businesses to keep their doors open and retain their fulltime employees relies upon having successful peak seasons to offset the rest of 

the year when their business is slow. During their busy seasons, companies 

must supplement their permanent staffs with temporary seasonal employees. 

Employers spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in their efforts to 

fill these positions. Unfortunately, even in today’s tough economic climate, there 

are not enough local workers available to fill all the temporary seasonal 

positions. As a result, companies often must utilize the H-2B program to find 

seasonal workers. 

After deriving some hope from the sentiments expressed in Executive Order 

13563, we were dismayed that the next day the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 

issued a rule that directly contradicts the memorandum’s intent. DOL’s January 

19, 2011 H-B wage methodology rule will impact the economic survival of 

seasonal companies. The significant costs associated with the new rule were 

The burden placed on OSHA by the Benzene decision and by other legislative 

and executive mandates is more than adequate to assure that OSHA’s 

regulations are guided by objective scientific evidence.
The Department of Labor (DOL) should consider two modifications to the Interim 

Final Rule implementing the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (29 

C.F.R. §2590.712).

Designation of a Deductible Sub-classification

The DOL has issued guidance addressing situations where health plans and 

insurers may use copayments for certain services such as physician office visits 

and co-insurance for other outpatient treatment settings. The guidance further 

allows plans to use two sub-classifications (i.e., office visits and all other 

outpatient services) for purposes of determining parity with respect to financial 

requirements.

There is an additional sub-category that should be recognized where a health 

plan uses a co-payment for some benefits and a deductible for others within the 

same category of coverage (e.g., inpatient/in-network). For example, a plan 

may require a copayment for hospital admissions and assess a deductible for all 

other services provided during the stay such as attending physician visits and 

surgery fees. In such situations, following a literal interpretation of the rule, it is 

possible that the deductible would not be assessed against “substantially all” 

medical and surgical benefits in the benefit category and, as a result, a 

deductible could not be used in connection with mental health or substance use 

disorder services in the same benefit category.

Group health plans should be permitted to consider deductibles as a subclassification within a benefit category. For example, a group health plan should 

be permitted to assess a deductible for hospital related services as long as the 

dollar amount or percentage of the deductible for a mental health in-patient stay 

is no greater than the deductible for a hospitalization for a medical condition.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) recommends that rule recognize that a 

separate sub-classification may be established within a category of benefits for 

services that are subject to a deductible.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has established rules on the electronic 

disclosure of information to benefit plan beneficiaries and participants (29 C.F.R. 

§2520.104b-1). The DOL has asked for comments on ways to improve the 

electronic delivery of plan information. Electronic disclosures are a costeffective way to provide consumers up-to-date information about their health 

coverage. The DOL should work with other federal regulatory agencies to 

ensure that the new electronic disclosure requirements incorporate the existing 

notice requirements as well as provisions being developed pursuant to the ACA. 

America's Health Insurance Plans recommends that DOL eliminate barriers to 

the electronic delivery of Summary Plan Descriptions, Evidence of Coverage 

documents, and other notices and information disclosures to group health plan 

participants and beneficiaries.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has established extensive requirements for 

notices and other information that must be provided to health plan beneficiaries 

and participants including rights under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act (ERISA) (see: 29 C.F.R. Part 2520) and the Health Information 

Portability and Accountability Act (see: 29 C.F.R. Part 2590). In addition, DOL 

and other agencies have created disclosure requirements pursuant to the 

Affordable Care Act (see: notice requirements at 29 C.F.R §2590.715-2711 [no 

lifetime or annual limit], §2590.715-2714 [eligibility of children to maintain health 

coverage until at least age 26], §2590.715-2719 [internal appeals and external 

review], §2590.715-2719A [patient protections], and §2590.715-1251 

[preservation of right to maintain existing coverage]). There are also provisions 

governing the disclosure of group health plan coverage information in the 

context of ERISA summary plan descriptions (see: 29 C.F.R. §§2420.104b-2 

and 2520.104b-3) and new requirements for uniform definitions and “evidence of 

coverage” documents under the ACA (42 U.S.C. §300gg-15). 

AHIP supports the rights of consumers to have clear and timely information 

about their health coverage and their rights and protections under their benefits 

plan. At the same time we believe that the DOL should work with the 

Departments of Health and Human Services and the Treasury to examine 

existing disclosure requirements to eliminate any conflicts and to ensure that 

consumers are receiving timely information about their health coverage in a 

meaningful manner. The DOL should also determine situations where federal 

and state disclosure requirements should be reconciled. 

AHIP recommends that the DOL examine all existing disclosure requirements 

and new provisions under the ACA to ensure that consumers receive clear and 

concise information about their coverage and their rights and protections. The 

DOL should additionally work to harmonize federal and state disclosure 

requirements.

The Department of Labor (DOL) should use existing data sources such as the 

Employee Benefits Survey and expand its efforts to better understand the impact 

of regulations. The cost and benefits should be measured to determine if more 

cost-effective rules are appropriate and to validate the estimates included during 

the rulemaking process.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) recommends the DOL expand the 

Employee Benefits Survey to include questions regarding the costs and benefits 

of compliance and whether more cost-effective implementation could be 

achieved.
The Administrative Procedures Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. §500 et seq.) requires that 

the public be given the opportunity to provide input prior to issuing a final 

regulation except in extraordinary circumstances where “the agency for good 

cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” (5 U.S.C. §553(a)(3)(B)). 

Providing opportunity for public comments allows federal regulatory agencies to 

better understand how regulations impact affected entities in “real world” 

situations. For example, the federal regulatory agencies, including the 

Department of Labor (DOL), have issued extensive guidance regarding Interim 

Final Rules that were released pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This 

guidance was necessary in some cases because the agencies did not allow 

sufficient time to solicit and consider public input during the rulemaking process. 

If the DOL believes an interim final rule is necessary, it should work with affected 

entities to address any concerns with the costs of and barriers to 

implementation. This approach would include the use of enforcement grace 

periods where DOL finds that entities need additional time to work in good faith 

to come into compliance with the interim final rule.

AHIP recommends the DOL first release proposed rules giving the public 

sufficient opportunity to provide input prior to the publication of a final regulation. 

If an interim final rule is issued, the DOL should work with affected entities to 

address any implementation issues and consider an enforcement grace period 

to give entities time to work in good faith to comply with the requirements.

The Department of Labor (DOL) should consider existing data sources and 

expand its efforts to survey the costs and benefits of regulations. This analysis 

could look at the costs and benefits of regulatory compliance and determine the 

accuracy of administrative cost estimates included in the rulemaking process. 

For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Employee 

Benefits Survey to analyze employer and union sponsored health and pension 

coverage. This annual survey of benefits should be expanded to solicit 

information on the costs of administering benefit plans with a focus on areas 

where more cost-effective compliance would be appropriate. 

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) recommends that DOL expand its 

research efforts, including use of existing approaches such as the Employee 

Benefits Survey, to measure the costs of compliance and whether more costeffective implementation could be achieved. The DOL should also take steps to 

validate regulatory cost estimates included in significant final rules through postrulemaking surveys and studies.
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) appreciates the Department of Labor's 

(DOL) on-going outreach initiatives including education and training for plan 

administrators and fiduciaries, compliance assistance publications, and 

informational resources available on the Employee Benefits Security 

Administration (EBSA) website. The Request for Information and the IdeaScale 

is a critical part of this strategy by establishing a process to solicit feedback, 

measure the effectiveness of existing regulations, and determine if any rules 

should be modified or repealed.

The DOL should be guided by three key principles for prioritizing existing 

regulations for review. First, the DOL should carefully examine areas where 

state and federal regulatory oversight exists, in order to eliminate any conflicts or 

burdens from dual regulation. Second, the agency should consider rules with 

significant implementation costs to determine if other, less burdensome 

approaches would achieve the intended results of the regulation. Finally, the 

agency should look at sub-regulatory guidance that has been issued on 

particular rules to determine if it is necessary to amend any existing regulations 

to reflect such guidance. For example, the EBSA has issued Technical 

Releases, Interpretative Bulletins, and Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 

to clarify implementation of a number of rules. The DOL should consider 

whether such guidance highlights regulatory provisions that should be modified 

or repealed. 

AHIP recommends the DOL prioritize its existing regulations for review based on 

an examination of (a) conflicts and administrative burdens with respect to 

overlapping state and federal oversight; (b) ways to provide cost-effective 

implementation; and (c) areas where sub-regulatory guidance can be 

incorporated into the existing rules.
April 8, 2011

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Room S-2312

Washington, DC 20210

Submitted via www.dol.gov/regulations/regreview.htm

Re:Reducing Regulatory Burden; Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563, 

76 Fed. Reg. 15224 (Mar. 21, 2011)

Dear Sir or Madam:

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submits the following 

comments in response to the request for information on the Department of 

Labor’s (DOL) implementation of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,” issued by the President on January 18, 2011.

AILA is a voluntary bar association of more than 11,000 attorneys and law 

professors practicing, researching and teaching in the field of immigration and 

nationality law. The organization has been in existence since 1946 and is 

affiliated with the American Bar Association. Our mission includes the 

advancement of the law pertaining to immigration and nationality and the 

facilitation of justice in the field. AILA members regularly advise and represent 

businesses, U.S. citizens, U.S. lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals 

regarding the application and interpretation of U.S. immigration laws. We 

appreciate the opportunity to comment on the implementation of Executive 

Order 13563 as it pertains to the regulations of the Department of Labor at Titles 

20 and 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and believe that our members’ 

collective expertise provides experience that makes us particularly well-qualified 

to offer views on this matter.
The HR Policy Association (“HR Policy” or “Association”) welcomes the 

opportunity to respond to the Department of Labor (DOL) request for information 

published on March 21, 2011, on long needed regulation reform, particularly 

reforms to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and its attendant regulations. 

The Association applauds President Obama for issuing Executive Order 13563, 

requiring a government-wide revamping of “outdated regulations that stifle job 

creation and make our economy less competitive.” It is HR Policy’s hope that 

the various agencies will give the President’s order sincere and serious 

consideration and take the necessary actions.

 

HR Policy Association is a public policy advocacy organization representing 

chief human resource officers of major employers. The Association consists of 

more than 300 of the largest corporations doing business in the United States 

and globally, and these employers are represented in the organization by their 

most senior human resource executive. Collectively, their companies employ 

more than 10 million employees in the United States, nearly nine percent of the 

private sector workforce, and 20 million employees worldwide. 

For some time now, the Association has been pointing to the ever increasing 

disconnect between the FLSA rules—many of which were enacted more than 60 

years ago—and the workplace of the 21st Century. In fact, in a September 23, 

2010 letter, the Association invited Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to 

join with the Association and other stakeholders in revamping the antiquated 

FLSA rules that have generated explosive litigation and locked employers and 

their employees into inflexible workplace policies.

For example, the September letter explained: 

"The core problem is that the FLSA was enacted during the Great Depression 

and is designed to address the workplace of that era and the decades 

immediately following, not that of the technology driven world and workplace of 

the 21st Century in which employees live and work. The law was passed when 

there generally was a fixed beginning and end to most employees’ workdays, 

with none of the advances in communications technology that have created the 
Outlined below are some ideas from the National Stone, Sand & Gravel 

Association for ways in which the U.S. Mine Safety & Health Administration can 

demonstrate follow-up on the President’s January Executive Order on regulatory 

reform. Please contact me with questions; I can be reached at (703) 526-1074 / 

jcasper@nssga.org. Thank you for your consideration. Joseph Casper, NSSGA 

VP Safety 

1.ELIMINATE DUPLICATIVE STANDARDS

MSHA – Mandated Use of Safety & Health Management Systems 

Background: 

The agency is preparing to propose a rule mandating the use of safety and 

health management systems (SHMS), on top of the standards mandated by the 

Mine Act. The effect could be that of duplication, given the wide tentacles of the 

Mine Act. The merits of SHMSs are well-documented; in fact, almost a half 

dozen NSSGA members testified at recent MSHA public meetings about the 

utility of SHMSs. Also, this rule will likely produce a one-size-fits-all approach to 

operators managing their facilities to reduce injuries and illnesses; whereas, 

operators need flexibility so as to tailor their efforts at hazards and risks unique 

to the size and complexity of their facilities. 

Impact: 

Once a SHMS rule is implemented, aggregates operators will likely be held to 

comply not just with the hundreds of standards implemented in support of the 

1977 Mine Act, but additional standards the company has/will have implemented 

of its own to ensure health and safety vis a vis a SHMS. With continually 

reduced injuries and fatalities, industry sees no justification for this increased 

compliance burden. 

DOL upload of hard copy comment

NAFSA: Association of International Educators submit the following comments 

to the Department of Labor in connection with its implementation of Executive 

Order 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the 

President on January 18, 2011. Our comments focus primarily on needed 

improvements to the labor certification process.

NAFSA's comments can be accessed on our web site here:

http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/DOLregreviewcommentApr072011%20publi

c.pdf
The Honorable Hilda Solis

Secretary of Labor

United States Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20210-0001

Re:The U.S. Department of Labor’s plan for retrospective analysis of significant 

regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13563 

Dear Secretary Solis:

The Employment Task Force of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 

Rights appreciates the opportunity to respond to the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

(Department) request for public comment as it develops a plan to review its 

significant regulations. The Leadership Conference is a coalition charged by its 

diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and 

protect the rights of all persons in the United States. 

The Department has undertaken this review pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which directs agencies to 

develop a plan to determine whether its significant “regulations should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the 

regulatory objectives.” 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). 

The Employment Task Force supports the administration’s effort to enable the 

Department to achieve its regulatory objectives more effectively. In reviewing its 

regulations, the Department should ensure that all regulations provide clarity and 

support vigorous enforcement of employment laws. Strong and specific 

regulations provide important guidance to employers and employees about the 

meaning of employment laws, which can promote voluntary compliance. 

Regulations requiring reporting and data collection should be robust to enable 

the Department to identify and challenge unlawful practices.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to conduct a decennial review of 

existing regulations. 5 USC §610. As it has done here, the Department should 

solicit input from the public when conducting its periodic reviews. However, in 

order for DOL to receive meaningful and thoughtful comments, an adequate 

comment period—a minimum of 90 days—must be provided. In order to reduce 

the burden on both the agency and the public, the Department should also 

consider staggering its periodic reviews and requests for public input according 

to the various Titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (e.g., Title 5, Title 

20, Title 29, etc.). Moreover, proposed regulations that result from the reviews 

should be published in the Federal Register with a full 120-day comment period 

to achieve the highest level of public participation. 

The Department should conduct its regulatory review in a methodical manner 

with a focus on substance. Factors to consider in selecting and prioritizing rules 

should include (1) the impact/benefit to the public; (2) significant economic 

considerations; (3) historical context; (4) nexus to the underlying 

statute/congressional intent; and (5) national interest considerations.
The National Partnership for Women & Families appreciates the opportunity to 

respond to the Department of Labor’s request for public comment as it develops 

a plan to review its significant regulations. The National Partnership for Women 

& Families is a national advocacy organization that develops and promotes 

policies to help women achieve equal opportunity, quality health care, and 

economic security for themselves and their families. 

The Department has undertaken this review pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which directs agencies to 

develop a plan to determine whether its significant “regulations should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the 

regulatory objectives.” 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). 

The National Partnership supports the Administration’s effort to enable the 

Department to achieve its regulatory objectives more effectively. In reviewing its 

regulations, the Department should ensure that all regulations provide clarity and 

support vigorous enforcement of employment laws. Strong and specific 

regulations provide important guidance to employers and employees about the 

meaning of employment laws, which promotes compliance. Regulations 

requiring reporting and data collection should be robust to enable the 

Department to identify and challenge unlawful practices. 

We urge the Department to undertake a careful review of existing regulations. 

The Department has already assessed costs and benefits before adopting its 

regulations to ensure that its regulations meet the needs of employers and 

employees with the goal of enhancing compliance with federal employment 

laws. 

Clear and strong regulations help to fulfill the Department’s mission “to foster, 

promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees 

of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for 

profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.” The 
ROBERT J. BACH

ATTORNEY AT LAW

60 EAST 42ND STREET 

40TH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NY 10165

212 867 - 4455

212 687 - 2123 (FAX) 

rjbachesq@hotmail.com

April 7, 2011

Phyllis Borzi 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Employee Benefits Security Administration 

Room –5653 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

 

Dear Secretary Borzi. 

I have been practicing employee benefits law for over 30 years. I have 

represented employee welfare and pension benefit plans from under 25 

participants to over 70,000 participants, single and multi-employer plans. I have 

supervised and run claims and appeals procedures for these plans and am fully 

familiar with the processing and adjudication of these claims on a “hands-on” 

basis. I also have represented plan participants in their attempts to obtain 

medical as well as pension benefits. 

 I am a former Chair of the ABA’s Joint Committee of Employee Benefits. I have 

frequently spoken on Claims Procedures and have litigated compliance issues 
OSHA’s recent decision to back away from a common sense interpretation of its 

standard that is designed to protect workers from dangerously high noise levels 

is very troubling. The standard states that when employees are exposed to noise 

levels exceeding the permissible limit “feasible administration or engineering 

controls shall be utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels....personal 

protective equipment ...shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels..." 

This language is very clear. As everyone who has taken an introductory 

Industrial Hygiene course knows, engineering and administrative controls are far 

more effective than personal protective equipment such as hearing protection. 

OSHA initially interpreted the standard to mean just what it says, but then, in the 

1980s, the standard began to be interpreted in such a way as to allow hearing 

protectors to be used to minimize exposure to harmful noise. OSHA’s recent 

attempt to return to the original, correct, interpretation of the standard would 

make a major difference in the lives of thousands of workers who could 

ultimately lose their hearing and suffer the major social consequences that this 

entails.

OSHA’s recent withdrawal of the “checkbox” requirement for Muskuloskeletal 

Disorders is similarly worrisome. Simply requiring employers to check a box to 

indicate that a reported injury or illness is a Musculoskeletal Disorder can hardly 

be considered overly burdensome to employers. These disorders are a major 

cause of absenteeism, higher health care costs, and pain and suffering for 

workers. It is critical that OSHA have the capability of gathering this data in 

order to monitor the extent of the problem.

Tom O’Connor

Executive Director

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health

The third prong of the definition of an “employee employed in a bona fide 

administrative capacity” under section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA is far too subjective 

and should be replaced through negotiated rulemaking with a bright-line prong 

that employers can easily follow. The current language in 541.202 is simply not 

clear enough. Frankly, not even DOL knows what it means; they just know it 

when they see it, which is not good enough for those employers who wan to 

follow the law.
Recent efforts to improve the Davis-Bacon wage survey have not addressed key 

issues with timeliness, representativeness, and the utility of using the county as 

the basis for the wage calculation. DOL has made some data collection and 

processing changes; however, the GAO found some surveys initiated under the 

new processes were behind DOL’s processing schedule. DOL did not consult 

survey design experts, and some criticisms of the survey and wage 

determination process have not been addressed, including the 

representativeness and sufficiency of the data collected. For example, DOL 

cannot determine whether its wage determinations accurately reflect prevailing 

wages because it does not currently calculate response rates or analyze survey 

nonrespondents. And, while DOL is required by law to issue wage rates by the 

“civil subdivision of the state,” the goal to issue them at the county level is often 

not met because of insufficient survey response. In the published results for the 

four surveys in GAO’s latest review, DOL issued about 11 percent of wage rates 

for key job classifications (types of workers needed for one or more of Labor’s 

construction types) using data from a single county. The rest were issued at the 

multi-county or state level. Over one-quarter of the wage rates were based on 

six or fewer workers. Further, GAO’s review of reports by DOL’s contracted 

auditor for four published surveys found most survey forms verified against 

payroll data had errors in areas such as number of employees and hourly and 

fringe benefit rates. At this point, it would be better and probably more cost 

effective to revise the regulations to enable the BLS to conduct the surveys.

See GAO report at:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11152.pdf

The burden placed on OSHA by the Benzene decision and by other legislative 

and executive mandates is more than adequate to assure that OSHA’s 

regulations are guided by objective scientific evidence.
Section §212(p) of the Immigration & Nationality Act requires DOL to provide 

four levels of wages whenever the DOL “uses, or makes available to employers, 

a governmental survey to determine the prevailing wage” for a position, and to 

compute prevailing wages for institutions of higher education and their nonprofit 

affiliates by taking into account only such institutions or related nonprofit entities 

in the area of intended employment. DOL regulations require use of the OES 

survey information to determine the prevailing wage. 20 CFR 

655.731(a)(2)(ii)(A); 20 CFR 656.40(b)(2). Yet, the OES survey does not 

provide wage data across all occupational categories and geographic locations. 

In addition, DOL has acknowledged that the OES data for the “Higher Education 

Database” (HED) contains wage data for only 300 of the 900 occupational 

codes. (Minutes of DOL liaison meeting with American Immigration Lawyer’s 

Association (AILA), 10/28/2010).

OES’ lack of sufficient wage data for the relevant occupational classification 

leads to inappropriate prevailing wage determinations. For example, where 

there is no OES data available in the “All Industries Database” for certain 

classifications of physicians, DOL issues prevailing wage determinations at a 

“default” rate of $80.00/hour. These determinations do not comply with the 

statutory and regulatory requirements to provide four levels of wage data 

specific to the area of intended employment. Nor is the default rate of $80.00 

justified in any publicly available guidance document of which we are aware. In 

liaison meetings with AILA, DOL has stated that it avoids use of the “all other 

occupations” SOC codes, even where the OES provides prevailing wage 

information for those codes. We suggest that, where OES lacks specific wage 

information for a particular code, DOL rely upon the “all other” data (which is at 

least geographically specific) rather than an arbitrary $80.00/hour rate that does 

not account for disparities in wages across different geographic locations. This 

problem is particularly acute with respect to medical residency training 

programs, which almost uniformly compensate physician trainees at rates well 

below the $80/hour rate as well as below the Level 1 wages for physicians where 

the OES data is available.

With regard to the HED, there are two significant problems: (1) When no data 

exists in the HED for the relevant occupational classification, DOL often applies 
20 C.F.R. 656.17(e)(B)(1) requires employers sponsoring aliens for PERM labor 

certification to place Sunday advertisements “in the newspaper of general 

circulation in the area of intended employment most appropriate to the 

occupation and the workers likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified, 

and available, U.S. workers.” This standard is overly amorphous and vague, as 

it requires the employer to make a subjective determination as to the paper that 

is “most appropriate for the occupation” and “most likely to bring responses” 

from qualified applicants. This creates particular problems in cases where the 

local Sunday paper may not be the most appropriate for the occupation or the 

most likely to attract qualified applicants. For example, an employer advertising 

for a professional position, such as a physician, in a rural area might be more 

likely to reach qualified candidates through an advertisement placed in the 

Sunday paper of the closest city, rather than in the rural, local Sunday 

newspaper in the place of employment. The current regulation offers no 

guidance for how to resolve this situation. We are aware of instances in which 

the DOL Certifying Officer has reached contrary conclusions on the question 

(i.e., denied PERM applications because the employer did not advertise in the 

rural, local newspaper, and yet also denied cases in which the employer 

advertised in the newspaper of a nearby city that was likely to reach more 

qualified applicants). In order to provide a clearer standard for employers to rely 

upon and greater consistency in the adjudication of PERM labor certification 

applications, 20 CFR 656.17(e)(B)(1) should be changed to read: “(1) Placing 

an advertisement in two different Sundays in the newspaper of general 

circulation in the area of intended employment.” In the alternative, we ask that 

DOL release a list of acceptable Sunday publications across all geographic 

areas so that employers will know they are conducting PERM recruitment in a 

way that DOL deems compliant with its regulation.

Respectfully submitted,

International Medical Graduate Taskforce
1) ACLI recommends that DOL revise §2550.404a-4 (selection of an annuity 

provider safe harbor) to modify or eliminate the requirement that fiduciaries 

make a determination as to whether “an annuity provider is financially able to 

make all future payments under an annuity contract.” This standard is difficult to 

meet in part because it is hard to know how to draw this conclusion. While it is 

part of a “safe harbor,” the requirement makes it hard to use the safe harbor and 

is not a requirement of selection of other financial protection products. 

Fiduciaries need clear and effective guidance regarding their duties when 

selecting guaranteed lifetime income products. The safe harbor should address 

all such products.

2) ACLI recommends that DOL explore a self-correction process for certain 

prohibited transactions, such as late contributions and loan failures to encourage 

timely and complete correction of such failures. 

3) In FAB 2009-02 and 2010-01, DOL allowed certain 403(b) contracts issued 

before 2009 to be excluded from the Form 5500 requirements. We request that 

these contracts be excluded from Title I requirements. For example, under the 

408(b)(2) fee disclosure regulation, it will be practically impossible to send 

required information to the plan sponsor because the provider may not be able 

to associate a particular contract with a particular employer.

4) Although, we understand that this question does not pertain to rulemaking 

currently open for public comment, we would like to stress the importance of the 

modifications DOL is making to proposed regulation 2510.3-21 (definition of 

fiduciary). It is critical that DOL make key changes to the proposal to avoid 

market disruption and preserve the availability of products and services to 

participants. 

5) Again, we understand that this question does not pertain to rulemaking 

currently open for public comment. However, we would like to remind you of our 

request for certain changes and clarifications to the interim final regulations 

under the 408(b)(2) fee disclosure regulations, as described in our comment 
1) ACLI recommends two changes to §2550.404a-5 (plan fee disclosure to 

participants) to make the rule more cost efficient while not sacrificing the 

benefits to participants. One modification would be to not require annual fee 

disclosure to eligible participants who have not elected to participate. Typically, 

a plan’s third party recordkeeper will not have information about these 

employees. Thus, it will be costly and burdensome to deliver this information to 

non-participants, increasing plan costs for the current participants, while 

providing very little benefit to the non-participant eligible employees. The 

information is not particularly relevant to non-participating employees. The 

disclosure is not intended to encourage participation. A second modification is 

to align the benchmark requirement to the FINRA requirements. The rule 

requires that, for every fund for which a benchmark is assigned, the plan must 

calculate a “since inception” return based on that benchmark. This increases 

plan costs without providing markedly better information to participants.

2) ACLI recommends that §2520.104b-1(c) (Disclosure through electronic 

media) should be modified to encourage use of electronic media and allow 

electronic communication to be used as the default method of delivery while 

preserving a participant’s ability to request and receive paper copies. Electronic 

communication can be more effective for participants (giving them access to 

more timely information) and less costly to administer and has the added benefit 

of protecting the environment (a goal named in the Executive Order). 

3) Combining various required notices when possible will result in cost savings. 

However, due to the slight variation in timing rules, this is sometimes difficult to 

do (e.g., the timing requirements for sending the QDIA notice are slightly 

different than the timing requirements for sending the participant fee disclosure 

notice). ACLI recommends that DOL review and modify the various notice 

requirements to align rules where possible to encourage the combined delivery 

of notices.

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

Recommendations for Improving Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) Regulations.

Reducing Regulatory Burden; Retrospective Review Under E.O. 13563: Request 

for Information [76 Federal Register 15224, March 21, 2011]

NAHB’s comments on improving OSHA regulations and guidance documents 

can be accessed on our website at: 

http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?ContentID=155570
The H-2A regulations are extremely burdensome and complex for employers. 

Many of the current regulations seem designed to complicate the process, rather 

than to support the program’s intended goal of allowing U.S. employers to hire 

foreign agricultural workers on a short-term basis. The following are specific 

recommendations for changes in the H-2A program that would bring greater 

clarity, increase efficiency, and reduce the workload in adjudicating these 

applications.

1. 20 CFR 655.103; 29 CFR 501.3. Define "corresponding employment" so that 

only workers hired for the work described in the job order at the time and place 

required qualify as corresponding employment. Eliminate the “any duty” rule and 

replace it with a materiality standard. 

2. 20 CFR 655.141(a) & (b). Clarify that CNPC must notify an employer of all 

deficiencies in an application in the first Notice of Deficiency to prevent CNPC 

from repeatedly changing its rationale for refusing to accept an application. 

3. 20 CFR 655.134(c). Expand the range of circumstances under which 

emergency processing of applications is appropriate. 

4. 20 CFR 655.121(b). Create an effective system for resolving SWA-CNPC 

conflicts. 

5. 20 CFR 655.151. Revisit the use of newspaper advertising as a recruitment 

method in light of its expense and ineffectiveness. 

6. 20 CFR 655.122(b). Provide that an employer may require that a prospective 

employee have any qualification required by law, to make clear that H-2A 

compliance and compliance with other legal obligations do not conflict. 

7. 20 CFR 655.120(b). Provide that the wage rate that an employer must pay is 

the legally-mandated wage at the time of certification, i.e., when the market test 

is complete. 

20 CFR 655.734 & 20 CFR 655.735. While the goal of providing notice at each 

H-1B workplace is laudable, the implementation of the rules on notice, and 

determining when the "short-term" placement rule applies is very complex and 

burdensome for employers. For example, an H-1B employer may place the H-1B 

worker at another worksite for up to 30 days, provided that there are no other 

LCAs in place for that location. In effect, this means that an employer who has 

offices in New York and Los Angeles, with LCAs in place for workers at each 

location, could be required to file an LCA each time an H-1B worker travels to 

the employer's other locations for a meeting. These workers are not relocating to 

the new worksite; they continue to report to their home office and location. They 

have no impact on U.S. workers employed at the other location. The notice 

obligation should be simplified so that employers are only required to post an 

LCA at the new worksite when the assignment will exceed 60 days in a calendar 

year. Further, no such notification should be required if the new worksite in in the 

same MSA as the original LCA.
20 CFR 656.20(b). This regulation provides that an application will be denied if 

there is a substantial failure by the employer to provide required documentation 

after an audit notification. This should be amended to allow for harmless errors, 

such as scrivener's error or omission of documents due to clerical error. This 

section is unforgiving of mistakes, omissions and misunderstandings, and 

violates the principles of fundamental fairness, particularly when a decision on 

an audit case can take 2 years to process. If decisions took less than 6 months, 

this strict rule might make more sense, but a denial based on a harmless 

mistake or error after waiting for 2 years is overly harsh.

20 CFR Part 656. Processing times should be specified in the regulations. 

Cases that are processed without audit are often completed within weeks of 

submission, whereas cases that have been selected for audit have taken 2 years 

or more to complete. This vast discrepancy in adjudication times is disruptive to 

employers and creates uncertainty in the program.

20 CFR 655.730(b). The regulation should be amended to provide clarification 

on "obvious inaccuracies." An unverified FEIN should not be considered an 

"obvious inaccuracy" and is not a lawful ground for denying an otherwise 

approvable ETA 9035.

The title or name of a prevailing wage survey should not be considered an 

"obvious inaccuracy" and is not a lawful ground for denying an otherwise 

approvable ETA 9035. Numerous employers have had LCAs denied simply 

because ETA does not recognize the name of a valid, published survey or wage 

source. Denying an LCA due to the survey name effectively conflicts with 20 

CFR 655.731(a)(2)(A)(2), which authorizes the employer to rely on "other 

legitimate sources" of wage information. By removing the name of the survey as 

a basis for denial, LCAs will be processed more efficiently, and DOL will not 

interfere with the employer's right to select other appropriate wage sources.

20 CFR 656.21(b): The regulation mandates at least one print advertisement, 

and "any other measures required by the CO." This unfettered discretion allows 

the CO to set supervised recruitment requirements on each case individually, 

making it an unpredictable cost for employers, and creating unnecessary work 

for the agency. A clearly delineated standard (i.e., one 3-day advertisement, 30-

day SWA job order, 30-day online advertisement) would reduce employer costs 

and improve agency efficiency in adjudicating these cases.

20 CFR 656.12. Revoke the prohibition on the alien paying attorneys fees. This 

interferes with the attorney-client relationship and is outside the scope of DOL's 

regulatory authority for labor certification. Further, in light of the ban on labor 

certification substitution, and the addition of an expiration date on approved 

labor certifications, there are already substantial protections against fraud in 

place.

20 CFR Part 656. Reinstate "harmless error" to allow the Certifying Officer to 

approve cases that may have technical violations, but are substantively 

compliant with the regulations. Harmless error was available under the prior 

regulations. This would reduce the workload for ETA, DOL, and ALJs and would 

reduce costs for employers.
20 CFR 656.17(e)(1)(B)(1). Remove (or reduce) the requirement of placing 

advertisements on two different Sundays in a newspaper of general circulation in 

the area of intended employment. This requirement is costly and ineffective. If 

DOL's goal is broad exposure of the available position, online recruitment would 

be substantially more effective than two print advertisements. If a print 

advertisement must be required, reduce the requirement to no more than one.

20 CFR 656.18(b)(3): Allow the use of an electronic publication; do not require a 

written publication. The requirement of a hard copy journal ad does not reflect 

"real world" recruitment for special handling occupations, whic is now done 

almost exclusively on an electronic basis.

There appears to be an error in the portion of 29 C.F.R. Part 785 addressing the 

Fair Labor Standards Act "hours worked" status of travel between home and 

work in emergency situations.

The opening sentence of Section 785.36 currently says, "There may be 

instances when travel from home to work is OVERTIME [emphasis added]." It 

so appears in the present paper and electronic versions of the Government 

Printing Office's Code of Federal Regulations, as well as on the U.S. Labor 

Department's website. I submit that the sentence should instead continue to 

read, "There may be instances when travel from home to work is WORKTIME 

[emphasis added]" as it did for many years, and that the possible impact of this 

difference is not a trivial one.

The Labor Department's website says that it reflects Section 785.36 as the 

provision was last revised on January 11, 1961, but this cannot be the case. 

See www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_785/29CFR785.36.htm. As of that 

date, the word "worktime" – not "overtime" – concluded the first sentence of 

Section 785.36. See 26 Fed.Reg. 194 (January 11, 1961). In fact, WH 

Publication 1312, reprinted in May 1979 and stating that it reflected the Code of 

Federal Regulations as things stood as of April 4, 1979, also ended the first 

sentence of Section 785.36 with the word "worktime". See WH Publication 1312 

at 10 (U.S. G.P.O. No. 1979–281-412/56).

My research has not disclosed why or exactly when the change from "worktime" 

to "overtime" occurred. So far as I have been able to determine, "worktime" was 

used in and before 1971, but the term "overtime" began to appear in 1972. I am 

unable to square this finding with the above-referenced representation in WH 

Publication 1312 or the version it reflects. I have located no advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking or any other administrative notice or procedure through 

which this change was proposed or adopted, either during the 1971-72 

timeframe or at any other time.

Obviously, the Labor Department, the Division, and experienced practitioners 

Department of Labor has rules but never enforces them. I regularly work with L1 

Visa workers who've been in the USA for 7 years, have no special skill, and 

manage nobody. I regulaly see people hire through nationalistic cronyism their 

friends for H1 positions make $104k as a programmer to $155k as a manager. 

These persons have no special skills and the jobs can easily be performed by an 

American. These jobs are NOT posted on the websites of these major 

corporations, in at least one case the phone number to apply is not even a 

working number, and Americans are regularly not even interviewed when they 

apply.
STOP THE H1B, H2B AND OTHER PROGRAMS OF THE US DEPT OF LABOR 

THAT GIVE AWAY AMERICANJOBS TO FOREIGNERS. AMERICAN JOBS 

FOR AMERICAN WORKERS IS WHAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY WAY IN 

THESE TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES. ONE HAS TO WONDER WHO THIS 

DEPT SUPPORTS - IT SEEMS TO BE FOREIGNERS, NOT AMERICAN 

WORKERS WHO NEED JOBS. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO ALL JOBS THAT 

OIPEN. THE SYSTEM DOL HAS SET UP FOR GIVING AWAY AMERICAN 

JOBS IS A FARCE.

IT IS TIME TO CUT THE VISAS ALLOWED TO FOREIGN WORKERS TO BE 

ZERO. AMERICA DOES NOT NEED ANY FOREIGNERS TO COME HERE TO 

WORK. WE HAVE SEVERE PROBLEMS IN AMERICA WHEN WE HAVE NO 

JOBS FOR WORKERS. AMERICANS ARE INGENIOUS ENOUGH THAT THEY 

CAN DO ANYTHING. WE DO NOT NEED FOREIGN WORKERS. STOP ALL 

THE H1BS, ALL THE H2BS, ALL THE MYRIAD OF PROGRAMS THAT ALLOW

IN FOREIGNERS TO WORK HERE. IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT COMPANIES 

MOVE OVERSEAS. WE SHOULD NOT ALSO ALLOW FORIEGNERS TO 

COME HERE TO TAKE JOBS TOO. THAT IS A DOUBLE ASSAULT AND IT IS 

KILLING AMERICA TODAY. CUT THE VISAS FOR JOBS. NOW. THIS IS THE 

MOST IMPORTANT THING YOUR DEPT CAN DO RIGHT NOW. THE MOST 

IMPORTANT

COMMENTS ON OSHA REGULATORY PROGRAM

UFCW strongly supports OSHA’s rulemaking on Comprehensive Combustible 

Dust Standard 

UFCW International Union supports rulemaking on a comprehensive 

combustible standard because there is longstanding knowledge about the 

hazards associated with combustible dust. Hundreds of combustible dust 

incidents have occurred and been reported on over the course of 30 years, and 

hundreds of workers have been killed and more injured in these incidents. We 

strongly believe that OSHA must promulgate a standard on combustible dust as 

quickly as possible to protect workers from the recognized danger and hazard of 

combustible dust in order to prevent additional deaths and injuries, such as 

those that resulted from the Imperial Sugar Refinery dust explosion in Port 

Wentworth Georgia on February 7, 2008, which killed 14 workers and severely 

injured scores more.

UFCW supports OSHA’s promulgation of an Injury and Illness Prevention 

Program rule. 

UFCW International Union supports an Injury and Illness Prevention Program 

rule because it will result in the reduction of workplace injuries and illnesses by 

requiring employers to implement injury and illness prevention programs. These 

programs would use systematic approaches to proactively identify safety and 

health hazards and fix hazards before workers suffer injuries or illnesses. 

UFCW supports OSHA’s efforts to strengthen and clarify current OSHA 

standards for Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment 

(i.e. Fall Protection). However, UFCW opposes three proposed changes because 

they would be detrimental to the safety of workers represented by the UFCW. 

First, UFCW opposes OSHA’s proposal to change OSHA standard 29 C.F.R. 

§1910.28(b)(vi) to create an exception to the requirement for guardrails or other 

fall protection on the working side of platforms in slaughtering facilities. OSHA’s 

proposed change would place meatpacking workers in more grave danger in 
Dear Sir or Madam:

The Financial Services Roundtable (“Roundtable ”) submits this letter in 

response to the United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Request for 

Information (“RFI”) implementing Executive Order 13563. The Roundtable is 

concerned about the unintended consequences that may occur due to the 

timeline for public comment within DOL’s proposal. The Roundtable appreciates 

DOL’s efforts to engage the public to participate in their regulatory review. 

However, the timeframe presented in DOL’s public notice does not, in our 

opinion, provide the public with sufficient time to develop thoughtful, substantive, 

and complete answers to DOL’s RFI. Our specific concerns are outlined below.

On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13563 

“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review." According to DOL’s RFI, the 

Order explains the Administration's goal of creating a regulatory system that 

protects the ``public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while 

promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation'' 

while using ``the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools to achieve 

regulatory ends.'' The order also requires agencies to develop and submit a 

preliminary plan by May 18, 2011. In brief, the President has requested that all 

executive agencies explain how they will eliminate inefficiencies in their 

rulemaking processes. 

In its RFI DOL requests that commenters identify the regulation or reporting 

requirements at issue and provide legal citation(s) where available. Further, 

DOL’s RFI also provides a very narrow window for the public to participate in 

this process. The Roundtable believes that providing the public with less than 

10 business days to respond to the RFI undermines the ability of serious 

commentators to conduct a comprehensive review of the regulations currently in 

effect and enforced by DOL. 

DOL states this RFI is the starting point for discussion of the criteria that can be 

used to prioritize its regulatory review. The Roundtable supports DOL’s intent 

Please see the comments that the Institute for Policy Integrity submitted to EPA 

on its Retrospective Review plans--the same suggestions are applicable to 

Labor's plans as well.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0031

Sincerely,

Jason Schwartz, Legal Director

Institute for Policy Integrity

NYU School of Law
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), on behalf of its members, submits these comments 

in response to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) solicitation of public input 

on the preliminary plan that will guide DOL’s retrospective review of regulations 

in response to President Obama’s January 18, 2011 Executive Order 13563, 

entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 

2, 2011)). DOL’s notice was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 

2011, and appears at 76 Fed. Reg. 15224. As part of this effort, TFI urges the 

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to rescind a 2005 

interpretation of the “retail facility” exemption set forth in its “Process Safety 

Management” (PSM) Standard, and any subsequent interpretations based on the 

same interpretation that are not present on its website, and consistent with its 

stated rationale for promulgating the exemption, interpret the exemption to apply 

at an establishment that would otherwise be subject to the Standard at which 

more than half of the establishment’s income is from direct sales to end users. 

Statement of Interest

TFI represents the nation’s fertilizer industry including producers, importers, 

retailers, wholesalers and companies that provide services to the fertilizer 

industry. Its membership is served by a full-time Washington, D.C., staff in 

various legislative, educational and technical areas as well as with information 

and public relations programs.

There are an estimated 6,800 agricultural retail facilities in the United States, 

with 30 percent being small businesses. Many TFI members operate retail 

facilities that hold fertilizers for sale to the end user. 

The PSM Standard contains an exemption set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 

1910.119(a)(2) stating that the Standard does not apply to “retail facilities.” 

Since its promulgation in 1992, for 13 years OSHA consistently interpreted the 

term “retail facility,” which is not defined in its regulations, to mean an 

establishment, which would otherwise be subject to the PSM Standard, at which 

more than half of the income is obtained from direct sales to end users. Then, 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Boeing Company, 

headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is the largest aerospace manufacturing 

company in the United States. Boeing offers the following two suggestions to 

improve selected OSHA regulations:

1. Older vertical standards, 29 CFR 1910.1025 - Lead and 29 CFR 1910.1027 

Cadmium, do not contain quantitative applicability thresholds in the scope of the 

rule. This can lead to application of the rules to situations where exposures are 

minimal and present very little threat to the health of workers, however 

application of the rule imposes cost and compliance burdens on the employer. 

OSHA recognized that problem when they revised the Hexavalent Chromium 

rule in 2006, and included a rule exemption threshold based on the levels of 

release of dusts, fumes and mists below which the rule is not applicable. OSHA 

explains their reasoning in the preamble to the final rule in the Federal register 

on February 28, 2006 - Volume 71 No.39 page 10331:

OSHA does, however, appreciate the concerns of commenters regarding 

situations where they believe exposures are minimal and represent very little 

threat to the health of workers. The Agency believes that a reasonable approach 

is to have an exception based on Cr(VI) exposure level. OSHA is therefore 

including in the final rule an exception for those circumstances where the 

employer has objective data demonstrating that a material containing chromium 

or a specific process, operation, or activity involving chromium cannot release 

dusts, fumes, or mists of chromium (VI) in concentrations at or above 0.5 μg/m3 

as an 8-hour TWA under any expected conditions of use. OSHA believes this 

approach is sensible because it provides an exception for situations where 

airborne exposures are not likely to present significant risk and thus allows 

employers to focus resources on the exposures of greatest occupational health 

concern. 

We request OSHA develop similar exemption thresholds for the 29 CFR 
I am writing to respond to the Department of Labor’s request for comments on 

improving DOL’s regulations and regulatory review, in particular rules issued by 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). President Obama’s 

Executive Order 13563, among other things directs agencies to develop a plan 

for conducting a periodic review to determine whether any existing significant 

regulations “should be modified, streamlined, expanded or repealed so as to 

make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives.” 

The executive order and DOL’s inquiry appear to be focusing primarily on the 

burdens of regulations to business. But OSHA’s job and legal mandate under 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act is to protect workers from exposure to 

serious hazards that put them at significant risk of injury, illness or death. 

Setting strong standards to protect workers should be the priority and focus of 

OSHA’s activities. 

The major problem with OSHA standards and regulations is that for many 

serious workplace hazards, the regulations are out of date or there are no 

regulations. For example OSHA’s permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic 

chemicals and hazardous agents regulated under 29 CFR 1910.1000 were 

adopted in 1971, codified the ACGIH threshold limit values from 1968, and are 

based on science that is more than 50 years old. It is widely recognized by the 

occupational health community and by OSHA itself, that many of the PELS are 

inadequate and put workers at increased risk of developing serious diseases. 

Another serious problem with OSHA regulations is that the regulatory process 

takes years and few regulations are issued. Part of the problem has been 

political with some Administrations, including the George W. Bush 

Administration refusing to move forward to develop needed rules. From 2001 – 

2008, only 3 significant OSHA standards were issued – two of them (hexavalent 

chromium and employer payment for personal protective equipment) as a result 

of court challenges. But a big part of the problem is that over the years 

additional requirements for analyses, reviews and documentation have been 

added to the rulemaking process, making the process much more cumbersome, 

lengthy and expensive. As a result, it now takes 5-10 years for a major OSHA 

standard to be developed and issued, with numerous standards initiated and 

DOL should amend its regulations at 20 CFR 656.17 to the following effect:

1. To permit amendment of the form ETA 9089 to correct typographical errors 

and technical errors and to permit conformance of the forms contents to the 

advertisement content. This would be an enormous cost saving benefit to 

employers and would lead to quicker processing of cases.

2. To provide for readvertisement of job positions when the initial ads are 

deemed to be noncompliant, without the necessity of refiling the application. 

This would allow the establishment and preservation of priority dates, which 

would be fairer to applicants.

3. To pemit the Certifying Officer to approve applications, even in the presence 

of technical errors, whenever he is otherwise convinced that the job market has 

been adequately tested, that no U.S. workers are available, and that there is no 

presence of fraud.

These changes would help reduce and eliminate the backlog of audited cases 

and motions for reconsideration, it would help reduce the enormous costs of 

labor certification for employers and would make the process more user friendly 

for U.S. employers, and ultimately these changes would permit U.S. employers 

to have access to skilled and educated employees, who are needed to enhance 

competitiveness and improve the economy.
Clarify § 825.218 Substantial and grievous economic injury to address 

situations where massive use of intermittent FMLA within a company or 

department which causes significant production, scheduling and financial 

hardship on the employer. 

We know of situations with a few employers where, for example, as many as 50 

percent of the employees in a department are on FMLA leave and intermittent 

FMLA leave. Conditions, such as, asthma, back injuries, etc., seem to flare up 

for a sizeable amount of the employee population around holidays and busy 

times where overtime might be required on a weekend or holiday. The result is 

that orders (and customers) are not satisfied, scheduling disruptions occurs, a 

financial loss for the company (customers will not come back if their orders are 

consistently late) and severe morale issues between employees who use FMLA 

intermittent leave and those who do not. While these employers have used 

recertification and 2nd opinions, these come at a high cost and are often not 

effective. Ultimately, this puts the employer at an economic disadvantage, 

which later costs jobs. 

In cases where wide-spread abuse of FMLA leave may be apparent (e.g., 50% of 

the workforce in a company, location, department are on FMLA leave, including 

intermittent), some guidance for employers on what other options he/she could 

use would be appreciated.

Although the Beneficiary of an employment-based permanent residence 

application is permitted to pay fees associated with the I-140 Immigrant Visa 

Petition and/or the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application, an employer may not 

seek or receive payment for the labor certification process from the beneficiary, 

pursuant to 20 CFR § 656.12(b). 

It would make sense to permit an exception for cases involving Schedule A 

Nurses, Physical Therapists (Group I) and/or foreign nationals of exceptional 

ability in the sciences or arts (Group II) since the DOL has already made its 

determination with respect to those occupations under INA § 212(a)(5)(A). 

On March 31, 2008, the DOL released an FAQ entitled "PERM Fraud Rule 

Round 2 FAQs." In the FAQ, the DOL states that a petitioning employer must 

pay for all attorneys' fees related to obtaining a permanent labor certification, 

including cases involving Schedule A labor certifications. 

Schedule A labor certifications are filed directly with USCIS, along with the I-140 

petition, in accordance with 20 CFR § 656.15, since the DOL has already made 

its determination under INA § 212(a)(5)(A). In those cases, the DOL waived the 

recruitment requirements set forth in 20 CFR § 656.17 that is normally required 

for most professional and non-professional occupations. Therefore, the "activity 

related to obtaining permanent labor certification" as mentioned in the DOL's 

March 31, 2008 FAQ, was completed prior to filing the I-140 petition – 

something for which the beneficiary is permitted to pay. 

The rule makes little sense in the context of these applications. Therefore, DOL 

should make an exception to 20 CFR § 656.12(b) for cases involving Schedule A 

labor certifications since the labor certification process has already been 

completed and delegated to USCIS by regulation.

oEliminate provider reimbursement and UCR charges from the list – The goal of 

MHPAEA is not to provide parity in payment to providers and it would be nearly 

impossible to comply with given the number of providers throughout the country 

and the different reimbursement rates paid to providers.
oEliminate provider network adequacy and admission standards from the list – 

These rules are already regulated by the states and a variety of accreditation 

organizations. It is not necessary to subject these standards to an additional 

parity test.

•Narrow the Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations Rule – The rule should be 

narrowed such that it applies only to non-quantitative treatment limitations that 

are (1) subterfuges for a quantitative limit, or (2) facially discriminatory.

•Narrow the Illustrative List of Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations – 

oEliminate medical management from the list – Early legislative versions of 

MHPAEA included parity rules for medical management, but those rules were 

not included as part of the final Act. The regulations should not attempt to 

create a set of parity rules where the Congress specifically declined to do so. 

Further, it is not necessary to try to create parity as to medical management. 

Medical management is a tool for assuring the appropriate use of services and 

quality of care – not denying treatment to patients – medical management 

companies are subject to strict accreditation rules.

March 30, 2011

VIA: http://www.dol.gov/regulations/regreview.htm

RE: Request for Public Comment on Plan for Retrospective Analysis of 

Significant Regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13563, which applies across 

the federal government. 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), 

http://federalregister.gov/a/2011-1385.

Dear Department of Labor,

These comments are submitted in response to the Department of Labor’s 

(“DOL”) request for public comment on a plan for retrospective analysis of 

significant regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13563. The DOL and other 

agencies have asked for public comment on factors that should be considered in 

doing a regulatory review, the process that should be used to select rules for 

review, and whether review should be focused on particular types of regulations.

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Corporate Equality 

(CCE). CCE is a non-profit equal employment opportunity research organization 

that was established in 2007. CCE was formed to help companies proactively 

respond to a new generation of complex and technology-based affirmative action 

and non-discrimination compliance issues. CCE is designed to carry out the 

mission of creating workplaces free from bias and unlawful discrimination by 

harnessing the synergies between human resource functions and by promoting 

affirmative action and equal employment regulatory compliance. CCE makes all 

of its research available to the EEO community at no cost. 

CCE congratulates DOL on conducting a retrospective analysis of significant 

regulations, and the request for stakeholder input into this process via a public 

review. One set of regulations that may benefit from review are the Uniform 

Guidelines on Personnel Selection Procedures (see footnote 1) (“Guidelines”) 

and their Questions and Answers (see footnote 2). These Guidelines are used 

OSHA’s permissible exposure limits need to be updated in order to insure 

adequate protection based on recent scientific knowledge.
Before this question is even entertained, employers should meet their basic 

obligation not to kill their employees.

OSHA and EPA should develop a coordinated policy for ventilation of air 

contaminants. At present, disconnect between EPA and OSHA ventilation 

policies result in unnecessary worker exposures.

Increased use should be made of the OSHA/NIOSH/EPA/MSHA (ONE) 

Committee and other interagency committees to produce a more coordinated 

policy on toxic substances such that levels of permitted worker exposure are 

brought closer to those levels that are considered necessary to protect the health 

of the general public.

The department should begin by determining why so many employers are still 

out of compliance with basic standards in ways that result in thousands of 

deaths each year.

OSHA cannot increase its flexibility until it has enough staff to get into 

workplaces and distinguish between real hazards and technical violations that 

are not dangerous to employees. A necessary prerequisite to regulatory 

flexibility is a vast increase in OSHA’s enforcement budget.

Retrospective studies of OSHA standards have indicated that regulatory impact 

analyses accompanying standards have overestimated costs and 

underestimated benefits. Hence, there is NO INDICATION that any existing 

OSHA standard needs to be reviewed for anything other than to determine which 

ones are not protective enough and need to be made stronger.

OSHA should not waste its limited time and resources prioritizing existing 

regulations for retrospective review. There are so many new OSHA standards 

needed as evidenced by the more than 4,000 people who die in the workplace 

each year, the more than 60,000 who die of chronic diseases related to 

occupational chemical exposures and the millions who suffer work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders. OSHA’s priorities should include completion the 

following standards: 

Injury/Illness Prevention Programs

Update of the Permissible Exposure Limits

Metalworking Fluids 

Silica 

Restoring the MSD Column to the OSHA Log

Infectious Diseases

Combustible Dust

Confined Space Entry in Construction

Electrical Power Transmission

Walking/Working Surfaces

Increased enforcement, a more user friendly process, a longer time allow to file 

are needed help minimize under reporting/non reporting by employees fearing 

retaliation so accurate statistics can be gathered.
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) respectfully requests 

that you afford the public at least 30 days within which to respond to your 

request for public comments on implementing Section 6 of President Obama's 

Executive Order 13563. 

SHRM is the world’s largest association devoted to human resource 

management. Representing more than 250,000 individual members, the 

Society’s mission is to serve the needs of HR professionals by providing the 

most essential and comprehensive resources available. As an influential voice, 

the Society’s mission is also to advance the human resource profession to 

ensure that HR is recognized as an essential partner in developing and 

executing organizational strategy. Founded in 1948, SHRM currently has more 

than 575 affiliated chapters and members in more than 140 countries.

SHRM is very much in accord with the goals of Executive Order 13563. As 

stated in the guidance memorandum of February 2, 2011 (No. M-11-10), the 

Executive Order is "designed to promote public participation, improve integration 

and innovation, increase flexibility, ensure scientific integrity, and increase 

retrospective analysis of existing rules." The attenuated public comment period 

afforded by the DOL undermines the goals of the Executive Order.

Although DOL announced through a press release issued on March 16, 2011 

that it was launching a website that day to receive public comments under the 

Executive Order, it did not publish its request for information in the Federal 

Register until March 21, 2011, and set a deadline for submission of comments 

at March 31, 2011. See 76 FR 15224-01 (March 21, 2011). SHRM's members 

have a vital interest in many of DOL'S regulations, including those promulgated 

by the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, and other DOL agencies. SHRM 

applauds the President's direction that the public have meaningful input into the 

regulatory process, but we cannot provide that input in a ten-day comment 

period. The goals established by the Executive Order demand more than a 
Revise the FMLA regs (29 CFR 825.204) to allow transfer to an alternative 

position for intermittent leave that is foreseen, but unscheduled. Section 102(b) 

of the FMLA allows an employer to temporarily transfer an employee to an 

alternative position if an employee requests intermittent leave, or leave on a 

reduced leave schedule under Section 102(a)(1)(C) or (D) or under Section 

102(a)(3), that is foreseeable based on planned medical treatment, provided 

certain conditions are met. 

As we know, there are foreseeable leave events with known dates and times, 

such as scheduled doctor appointments. However, we also know that there are 

foreseeable leave events with unknown dates and times, such as the birth of a 

child, or the intermittent recurrence of a chronic serious health condition. FMLA 

medical certifications for chronic serious health conditions that foresee the need 

for unscheduled intermittent leave on a recurring basis effectively turn 

“unforeseen” intermittent leave into “foreseen” leave as both the employer and 

employee are on notice of the need for periodic unscheduled leave. 

This type of foreseen, yet unscheduled leave is consistent with Congressional 

intent for Section 102(b) of the FMLA. The distinction in the regulations between 

foreseen and unforeseen leave is entirely a regulatory construct as the statute 

neither defines nor mentions unforeseen leave; therefore the relationship 

between unscheduled leave and unforeseen leave is entirely up to the 

Department to determine.

The Department should revisit this issue as it would benefit both employees with 

chronic serious health conditions that require unscheduled intermittent leave, 

and employers whose operations can be seriously disrupted by the foreseen 

need for such leave.

On 9/2/04 my father was involved in a workplace incident that eventually took 

his life. After OSHA's investigation was complete and violations were issued to 

my father's employer, I read about them in the local newspaper. No OSHA 

officials ever spoke to my family, nor were we notified when the investigation 

was complete. We spent 2 1/2 months in the hospital with my father. We spoke 

to many visitors from his workplace. If the OSHA investigator had spoken to us 

we could have recommended individuals to be interviewed or provided important 

information. Regulations involving investigations must be changed to include 

family members in the investigation process.

On 9/2/04, my father was involved in a workplace incident that eventually took 

his life. OSHA investigated and cited my father's employer for 7 serious and 1 

willful violation. The case was settled for a $102,500 fine! My father was taken 

from us way too soon all because of a willful violation with a $102,500 fine for a 

company that had net income for 2004 of $15.7 billion. Fines and penalties 

must be adjusted for inflation and be large enough to deter practices that put 

workers lives at risk. The average fine for a worker fatality is $5,000 and on 

average 14 workers die on the job every day.
The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) welcomes the 

opportunity to provide a response to the Department of Labor’s (“the 

Department”) request for public comment on the plan for retrospective analysis 

of significant regulations. We commend the Department for offering the 

opportunity to provide suggestions regarding the regulations that should be 

reviewed and the factors to be considered as the review is conducted. 

SIOP is a Division of the American Psychological Association (APA), an 

organizational affiliate of the American Psychological Society, and includes over 

3,900 member industrial-organizational psychologists and 3,000 student 

affiliates. The Society’s mission is to enhance human well-being and 

performance in organizational and work settings by promoting the science, 

practice, and teaching of industrial-organizational psychology. 

On behalf of SIOP, I am writing to express our view that the Uniform Guidelines 

on Employee Selection Procedures (the “Guidelines”) and their corresponding 

Questions and Answers should be included among the initial regulations to be 

reviewed in the retrospective analysis.

These Guidelines are used by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (OFCCP), which is responsible for enforcing Executive Order 11246 

and related affirmative action and equal employment opportunity obligations of 

federal contractors. 

The Guidelines are a critical source of guidance for employers who intend to 

select and manage their workforce using fair and valid selection processes. 

According to Section 1(B) of the Guidelines, their purpose is clear: “These 

guidelines incorporate a single set of principles which are designed to assist 

employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing and 

certification boards to comply with requirements of Federal law prohibiting 

employment practices which discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, 

sex, and national origin and provide a framework for determining the proper use 

of tests and other selection procedures.” 

Furthermore, the Guidelines describe research strategies (i.e., validation 

Qualified plans can't shoulder the burden on providing financial education to 

every american. The DOL has been making efforts to provide some education 

on its website - but working with other agencies, such as the dept of education, 

to get programs in schools should be a high priority.

Now that excess contributions (refunds) are taxable in the year they are 

received, can we extend the deadline to distribute them to 7 or 12 months after 

the Plan year end? The current rules seems to put a burden on everyone and an 

unnecessary excise tax for being late.

The DOL and IRS have informally indicated that they use very little of the data 

on the 5500. If that's true, then the form should be rewritten in its entirety so that 

we capture meaningful and useful data.

The IRS and DOL have different perspectives on electronic signatures (compare 

5500 submissions vs. 1040 submissions). They also differe on participant 

communication. We need to shift to electronic being the primary mode of 

communication - for those who absolutely need paper I'm OK having a plan pay. 

For those who get paper because they don't take the time to sign up 

electronicall, allow plans to charge those participants for the costs.
More comprehensive application of the regulation is needed to ensure 

employees are adequately trained. Employers tend to remedailize the training 

which leads to employee exposures.

While I agree that the Form 5500 and Schedules are not technically tax forms, 

there needs to be some process in place to require some minimum 

qualification/ethics of the organization preparing the Form for signature.

Usually nowadays employees are asked to make decisions regarding how much 

to save and how to invest those savings for retirement. Most employees don't 

have any idea regarding the most basic investing concepts, yet are only required 

to be given prospectuses, performance sheets, etc. What they really need is the 

"plain" English version of what is the difference between cash and annuities, 

insured funds versus no guaranteed rate, risk, return, time value of money, how 

to evaluate investments, etc. They need definitions with examples. What better 

place to have this than the "plain" English summary of the plan, the Summary 

Plan Description. After all, investing may be one of the main determinations of 

how much the participant will have to retire on.

•Allow Requirement for ERISA SPD Disclosures in Non-English Language to 

Apply Upon Request – DOL regulations require that a health plan must disclose 

summary plan descriptions in a foreign language if a certain number of 

participants are literate only in that language. 29 CFR 2520.102-2(c). (The 

requirement also applies to summary annual reports at 2520.104b-10(e).) Since 

health plans have no way of identifying how many participants are literate on 

certain languages (and are prevented by labor and employment laws from 

inquiring about race and ethnicity), this requirement should not be automatic and 

only should apply upon request. Note that this provision also appears in the 

claims and appeals rules under the Affordable Care Act.

•Clarify Interaction of HIPAA and ADA on Wellness Programs – The DOL, HHS, 

and IRS have issued requirements regarding wellness programs under the 

HIPAA nondiscrimination rules. 29 CFR 2590.702. Separately, the EEOC has 

questioned whether incentive programs that clearly would be permitted under the 

HIPAA wellness rules would be permitted under the ADA (but has issued no 

guidance one way or the other). The Affordable Care Act codified the HIPAA 

wellness rules, and the Administration has encouraged health plans and insurers 

to adopt these types of programs. But health plans are receiving a mixed 

message because they do not know what action the EEOC might take. For any 

new rules that are issued, the agencies and the EEOC should be consistent and 

clear how these rules interact, and any changes should be prospective only.
•Allow Collection of Family History in Health Risk Assessment – The Genetic 

Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits a health plan from 

underwriting coverage based on genetic information. DOL, HHS, and IRS read 

this provision to mean that a health plan cannot offer any type of incentive (even 

a t-shirt) for individuals to complete a health risk assessment that asks family 

history. They view such an incentive to be "underwriting." 29 CFR 2590.702-

1(d). This interpretation clearly is broader than the statute intended and should 

be revised so that a health plan is permitted to request family history as part of 

an HRA, as long as any incentive is not tied to a particular response, but for 

merely completing the form. The health plan also should be able to use this 

information to enroll individuals in applicable wellness and disease management 

programs. It is unclear how providing an additional benefit to individuals based 

on family history would violate a discrimination rule meant to protect those with 

an adverse genetic history.

•Allow WHCRA and COBRA Notices to be Provided in SPD – The annual notice 

under the Women's Health & Cancer Rights Act and the initial notice under 

COBRA must be provided to both participants and beneficiaries, which has 

raised questions as to whether a notice via SPD would be sufficient and has 

resulted in health plans sending duplicate notices to the same households. 

Health plans should be able to satisfy these notice requirements (as well as any 

other notice requirement under ERISA) by including these notices in the health 

plan's summary plan description, which contains the other ERISA-required 

information. Individuals would know to look in this central document for any 

required notices.

•Retain Current ERISA SMM Rules – ERISA requires that a health plan issue a 

summary of material modifications (SMM) to reflect plan amendments within 

210 days of the close of the plan year in which the change was adopted. 29 

CFR 2520.104b-3. Group health plans must issue an SMM for any material 

reduction in covered benefits within 60 days of adoption. The Affordable Care 

Act adopts yet another notice requirement that a health plan must give a 60-day 

advance notice of a change to the new summary of benefits document under 

PHSA § 2715. DOL should work with HHS and IRS to make sure these notice 

requirements are reconciled and consistent so that a health plan is not required 

to issue multiple notices and to clarify that the section 2715 notice requirement 

is narrowly read to apply only to changes to the summary of benefit document, 

not broader changes for which notice already is required under the ERISA SMM 

rules.

•Allow ERISA Summary Plan Description (SPD) to Reference Links – Several 

items that are required to included in an SPD are constantly updated, including 

formularies, provider lists, and the new preventive care recommendations. DOL 

should clarify that an SPD may refer to a website for these materials and still 

satisfy the SPD disclosure requirements. Otherwise, the material in the SPD is 

out of date as soon as it is printed and can be misleading to participants.

•Expand ERISA Electronic Disclosure Safe Harbor - Request that electronic 

disclosure rules at 29 CFR 2520.104b-1 be broadened to reflect wider use of 

technology/consumer demand that materials be available online, rather than 

hard copy. The rule should allow electronic disclosure of all documents required 

under ERISA (including claims statements) to be disclosed electronically, 

without affirmative consent required and without regard to whether an employee 

accesses a computer as part of his or her employment duties, as long as an 

individual has a right to request a paper copy. The rule should clarify that this 

requirement extends to any notice required under ERISA, including new notices 

under the Affordable Care Act.
To Whom It May Concern:

Executive Order 13563, issued January 21, 2011, requires agencies to develop 

protocols for periodic review of significant regulations and to “promote 

retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in 

accordance with what has been learned.” 76 Fed. Reg. 14. We have been 

informed that in response to the President’s executive order asking agencies to 

conduct a ‘look back’ review of regulations, the US Department of Labor (DOL) 

is preparing a preliminary plan to conduct its review, and has provided a webbased forum for public comment. The National Employment Law Project 

(NELP) submits these comments in response to this invitation. 

NELP is a non-profit organization that engages in research, education and legal 

advocacy on behalf of low-wage workers to ensure that vital workplace 

protections are respected, in order to advance economic security for all workers. 

Below, we highlight a number of key priority regulations under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) that should be updated to take into account modern 

workplace and industry practices that operate to decrease compliance with the 

nation’s wage and hour standards.

DOL’s False Tradeoff in Regulatory Assessment

As an initial matter, we note our concern with the DOL’s summary of EO 13563, 

available on its website:

“Executive Order 13563 . . . aims to create a regulatory process that ‘strikes the 

right balance’ between what is needed to protect health, welfare, safety and the 

environment for all Americans, and what we need to foster economic growth, job 

creation and competitiveness.”

This summary suggests that a regulatory process that protects workers, on the 

one hand, while at the same time fostering economic growth, on the other, are 

Why Doesn't the DOL & OSHA use the fines they collect to supplement their 

budget?

1)ASPPA recommends that DOL issue regulatory guidance to allow 403(b) 

contracts issued before 2009 to be excluded from the Form 5500 financial 

statements per FAB 2009-02 and 2010-01. We also recommend that DOL 

appoint a committee of experts to review and suggest modifications to the audit 

guidelines for 403(b) plans.

2)ASPPA recommends that DOL Reg. §2520.104b-1 pertaining to the electronic 

transmission of ERISA notices be changed to adopt an “opt-out” approach, 

where the default would be electronic delivery. Participants who would prefer to 

receive their disclosures in paper form could elect to do so without charge.

3)ASPPA recommends that the DOL allow for a self-correction option under 

VFCP for the late deposit of employee 401(k) contributions if the “Online 

Calculator” is used to determine lost earnings and certain other requirements are 

met.

Workers and their representatives need better involvement in the OSHA 

settlement process. DOL Solicitors must do better.
workers need stronger protections against discrimination when they exercise 

their legal rights as provided by OSHAct to a safe work place. OSHA needs 

better tools to cite employers for the many, many ways they stiffle reporting of 

injuries/illness. When management keeps injuries/illness from being reported - 

they don't control the hazards. Too many workers are then injured, made ill or 

killed as a result.

I think 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c) should be updated to reflect that electronic 

communication (rather than paper communication) is now the norm. While we 

should preserve individuals' option for paper communications, I think that the 

rules for electronic disclosures (SPDs and other notices) should be simplified.

The control of hazardous energy is comprehensively addressed by 29 CFR 

1910.147 and 1910.333. The provisions of 1910.261(b)(1) are outdated, 

superfluous and redundant as to the hazards, and lack the necessary flexibility, 

often to the point of being infeasible.

29 CFR 2560.503-1 should be amended to conform with Social Security 

Regulations that state that the treating physician opinion should get more weight 

and be presumed true, subject to rebuttal only by significant contradictory 

evidence. The US Supreme Court refused to apply the treating physician rule in 

ERISA cases saying it was in the province of the DOL and since no rule made 

they would not apply the treating physician rule presumption in ERISA disability 

cases. This can be rectified by rule and would cost the federal government 

nothing and would go a long way in evening the playing field in ERISA disability 

cases.

I) Auditing-I was shocked at the amount of money spent by the DOL ($60 million 

plus) recovering a few million in back wages ($2-3 million) on ARRA projects in 

our region (according to a DOL representative at Davis Bacon Seminar). It 

seems to me that educating the workforce and employers, and a well advertised 

complaint based system would be sufficient, less costly, and less of an 

administrative on compliant employers and the DOL. 

II)) Requests for new Classifications (SF1444s) take too long for the DOL to 

process. Often, by the time they are approved or denied the project is complete 

and employees are gone causing an adminsitrative burden on the employer. 

Suggestions: (1) Have an online system to expedidate the process, (2) allow 

wage classification requests to be submitted approved prior to project start for 

known missing classifications (subject to compliant-based audits, see above) & 

(3) Have a DOL goal of a week or two turn around time

III) Utilize the BLS as a source of expertise and data for wage schedules updates 

and new wage classification request rates. Why have two different branches 

conducting wage surveys? Why can't BLS data be used to justify rates for new 

classification requests. Agree on a methodology and conduct the periodic 

surveys needed one time.
Petition for Rulemaking

Pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

553 (e), the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) hereby 

submits the attached Petition for Rulemaking to institute procedures and policies 

to further the Department’s mission to protect the interests of claimants under 

the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) by 

“...ensuring timely and accurate claims adjudication and provision of benefits, by 

responsibly administering the funds authorized for this purpose...”

Specifically, this Petition calls for the Department of Labor to model its 

administrative regulatory framework to reflect the Congressional intent of 

EEOICPA; whereby the Department would reform its regulations regarding the 

claims process under Part E of EEOICPA, pursuant to 20 CFR Parts 1 and 30, 

to restore the claimant favorable paradigm that Congress envisioned for this 

remedial compensation program.

A claimant favorable paradigm is defined as a presumption to interpret any and 

all statutory and regulatory provisions to the benefit of the claimant in a manner 

that realizes and restores the remedial purpose of this landmark legislation. 

Regulatory reform reflecting a claimant favorable paradigm regarding the 

enforcement of 20 CFR 30.231(b) and 20 CFR 30.213 would allow claimants 

under Part E of EEOICPA to meet a lower burden of proof to receive 

compensation, as intended by Congress.

20 CFR 30.231(b) provides:

Proof of exposure to a toxic substance may be established by the submission of 

any appropriate document or information that is evidence that such substance 

was present at the facility in which the employee was employed and that the 

employee came into contact with such substance. 

This evidentiary burden stands in direct contradiction with the claimant favorable 

paradigm of this program. EEOICPA was enacted because Congress 

determined that the U. S Department of Energy (DOE) failed to maintain 

adequate records demonstrating the levels of radiological, heavy metals, and 

29 CFR Part 825 Section 202 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 

provides for the use of intermittent leave in part for one’s own serious health 

condition. Migraines, as an example, can be a covered condition for the use of 

intermittent leave provided it meets the definition of a serious health care 

condition in its entirety (825.113 and 825.115). Medical conditions whereas the 

pain or condition itself is subjective and are not caused by other underlying 

conditions that have been medically tested resulting in the conclusive diagnoses 

of condition(s) should be restricted from this Act. 

Employers are faced with a diminishing workforce and are increasingly burdened 

with employees’intermittent absences on a continuing weekly basis by those 

employees whose work ethics are less than admirable and that take advantage 

of this aspect of the law. In addition, peers who are already taking on more 

responsibilities are faced with having to fill-in during those intermittent absences 

causing additional work, stress, burn-out, and lower morale. Employers are 

better equipped to meet business needs when absences are not intermittent. 

However, by excluding in law those medical conditions which are subjective 

should preclude abuse, only include those that have a real need, and help 

restore continuity of services in the workplace.

Davis Bacon has worked well for us over the years why change something that 

does not need changing. Implementing EFCA would be a great place to start if 

you want to make a positive change!!
Leave Davis Bacon alone, it has served us well so why fix something that is not 

broken!!! If we want to talk about a change that is needed lets talk EFCA!!!

40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq. creates an artificial ceiling on wages to be paid by 

contractors on public sites. The higher wages that are requires to be paid make 

it difficult to operate in the public sector market. The free enterprise market 

should be used to determine the wages to be paid all workers and allow the 

small contractors to be profitable. My suggestion is to repeal this act 

completely - but since I do not think that will happen, I would suggest allowing 

more input from the local contractors on the wages to be used - rather than 

simply relying on what the local unions mandate. The business community 

should be allowed more say in the salary setting.

On April 9, 1999, DOL issued regulations that narrowed the ability of the 

Department of issue wage determinations for helpers on construction projects 

that significantly limits valuable on-the-job-training opportunities for 

disadvantaged workers, minorities, and youth. Currently, wage determinations 

are provided for helpers on Davis-Bacon projects only where their duties are 

clearly defined and distinct from journeymen or laborers, and where the use of 

helpers is an established practice in the area. DOL should revisit this issue 

beginning with a request for information. 29 CFR 5.2(n)(4)

The regulations under Executive Order 11246 (see especially 41 CFR 60-2 and 

60-4) are illegally discriminatory, divisive, and unfair, as explained in Roger 

Clegg, "Unfinished Business: The Bush Administration and Racial Preferences," 

32 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 971, 988-991 (2009) (link: http://www.harvardjlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/CleggFinal.pdf ), and should be revised as 

described in that article.

A system needs to be put into place, much like the online-MARYLAND 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ALERT: Request for Separation Information 

REMINDER-which give us resolve on cases. We get some decisions by mail but 

typically have to call on the remaining decisions which causes extra work for the 

HR department.
Date Idea 

Number Author Author Email

4/8/2011 10:17 0 Community Member primkus@rimkusmarciano.com

4/8/2011 9:03 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov
4/8/2011 9:02 0 Community Member cooper.leslie.c@dol.gov
4/8/2011 8:59 0 Community Member cooper.leslie.c@dol.gov
4/8/2011 6:57 0 Community Member Liska@atlanticbb.net

4/8/2011 6:30 0 Community Member Liska@atlanticbb.net

4/7/2011 9:25 0 Community Member Liska@atlanticbb.net
4/6/2011 15:04 0 lms4923 lms4923@yahoo.com

4/1/2011 13:31 0 jfrederick023 jfrederick023@gmail.com

4/1/2011 13:19 0 jfrederick023 jfrederick023@gmail.com

4/1/2011 12:07 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

4/1/2011 11:30 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

4/1/2011 11:29 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

4/1/2011 5:56 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov
3/31/2011 12:15 0 elkfever2 elkfever2@hotmail.com

3/30/2011 10:22 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/30/2011 9:29 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/30/2011 9:12 0 elkfever2 elkfever2@hotmail.com

3/30/2011 7:04 0 Robert.Richter Robert.Richter@gmail.com

3/30/2011 6:50 0 Robert.Richter Robert.Richter@gmail.com

3/30/2011 6:08 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/29/2011 20:15 0 elkfever2 elkfever2@hotmail.com

3/29/2011 19:58 0 elkfever2 elkfever2@hotmail.com
3/29/2011 17:13 0 ltfisher ltfisher@comcast.net

3/29/2011 16:14 0 vegasjoe57 vegasjoe57@gmail.com

3/29/2011 12:53 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/29/2011 12:52 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/29/2011 12:43 0 Joy.Root Joy.Root@SecurityBenefit.com

3/23/2011 9:45 0 Mark Wilson mwilson@appliedeconstrategies.com

3/23/2011 5:45 0 junebouillon junebouillon@beckoil.com

3/22/2011 18:49 0 pjmmam1927 pjmmam1927@aol.com
3/22/2011 18:11 0 Jancpd Jancpd@aol.com

3/22/2011 13:02 0 Kwm510190 Kwm510190@aol.com

3/30/2011 10:38 0 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net

3/30/2011 10:33 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/28/2011 8:07 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/30/2011 5:57 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

4/1/2011 7:48 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov
3/17/2011 14:25 0 gerald.edgar gerald.edgar@poet.com

3/18/2011 9:45 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov

3/18/2011 8:00 0 awilliams awilliams@mtajv.com

3/30/2011 6:05 0 DOL Moderator franklin.corman@dol.gov
Comment

I don't see enough value to the DOL even maintaining prevailing wage data to justify the 

costs.

Dear Associate Assistant Secretary:

The Investment Company Institute, the national association of U.S. investment companies, is 

pleased to submit these comments on how the Department can improve its regulations and 

reduce their burdens. Our recommendations focus on enhancing retirement security through 

the Department's role as primary regulator of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

We support the goal of the President's Executive Order 13563 to use "the best, most 

innovative, and least burdensome tools to achieve regulatory ends." To that end, we have 

three recommendations to modernize the ERISA regulatory regime to make the delivery of 

communications that workers receive about their employer-based retirement plans most 

effective and reduce regulatory costs and burdens.

Streamlining the volume of participant disclosures. Workers who participate in 

ERISA¬governed retirement plans receive a myriad of required disclosures and forms 

imposed by the Department and the Internal Revenue Service under various provisions of 

ERISA. The Department should take the lead and work with the IRS to streamline and 

consolidate these notices. In doing so, they should focus plan participants on the key 

information they need to make the decisions required of them under the plan; more detailed 

information could be available to them online when needed.' Information delivery should 

center on key decision points including plan enrollment and termination of employment.'

Updating the Department's 2002 electronic disclosure rules. Modernizing the Department's 

almost 10-year old rule on e-distribution will increase the effectiveness of ERISA's disclosure 

rules in informing and assisting participants while minimizing the costs and burdens the 
Dear Associate Assistant Secretary:

The Investment Company Institute, the national association of U.S. investment companies, is 

pleased to submit these comments on how the Department can improve its regulations and 

reduce their burdens. Our recommendations focus on enhancing retirement security through 

the Department's role as primary regulator of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

We support the goal of the President's Executive Order 13563 to use "the best, most 

innovative, and least burdensome tools to achieve regulatory ends." To that end, we have 

three recommendations to modernize the ERISA regulatory regime to make the delivery of 

communications that workers receive about their employer-based retirement plans most 

effective and reduce regulatory costs and burdens.

Streamlining the volume of participant disclosures. Workers who participate in 

ERISA¬governed retirement plans receive a myriad of required disclosures and forms 

imposed by the Department and the Internal Revenue Service under various provisions of 

ERISA. The Department should take the lead and work with the IRS to streamline and 

consolidate these notices. In doing so, they should focus plan participants on the key 

information they need to make the decisions required of them under the plan; more detailed 

information could be available to them online when needed.' Information delivery should 

center on key decision points including plan enrollment and termination of employment.'

Updating the Department's 2002 electronic disclosure rules. Modernizing the Department's 

almost 10-year old rule on e-distribution will increase the effectiveness of ERISA's disclosure 

rules in informing and assisting participants while minimizing the costs and burdens the 

current paper-based system imposes on administering plans — costs that participants bear. 

The Department has acknowledged the need to consider possible changes to its 2002 rule in 

light of changes in technology and the workforce in the past 10 years and has published a 

request for information. Regulatory reforms to e-delivery rules particularly need to 

incorporate proven innovations and tools, including the successful use of electronic delivery 

of quarterly benefit statements under the Department's interim PPA guidance in Field 

Assistance Bulletin 2006-03. We strongly support reexamining the 2002 rule and urge a 

comprehensive and expeditious review.
Dear Associate Assistant Secretary:

The Investment Company Institute, the national association of U.S. investment companies, is 

pleased to submit these comments on how the Department can improve its regulations and 

reduce their burdens. Our recommendations focus on enhancing retirement security through 

the Department's role as primary regulator of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

We support the goal of the President's Executive Order 13563 to use "the best, most 

innovative, and least burdensome tools to achieve regulatory ends." To that end, we have 

three recommendations to modernize the ERISA regulatory regime to make the delivery of 

communications that workers receive about their employer-based retirement plans most 

effective and reduce regulatory costs and burdens.

Streamlining the volume of participant disclosures. Workers who participate in 

ERISA¬governed retirement plans receive a myriad of required disclosures and forms 

imposed by the Department and the Internal Revenue Service under various provisions of 

ERISA. The Department should take the lead and work with the IRS to streamline and 

consolidate these notices. In doing so, they should focus plan participants on the key 

information they need to make the decisions required of them under the plan; more detailed 

information could be available to them online when needed.' Information delivery should 

center on key decision points including plan enrollment and termination of employment.'

Updating the Department's 2002 electronic disclosure rules. Modernizing the Department's 

almost 10-year old rule on e-distribution will increase the effectiveness of ERISA's disclosure 

rules in informing and assisting participants while minimizing the costs and burdens the 

current paper-based system imposes on administering plans — costs that participants bear. 

The Department has acknowledged the need to consider possible changes to its 2002 rule in 

light of changes in technology and the workforce in the past 10 years and has published a 

request for information. Regulatory reforms to e-delivery rules particularly need to 

incorporate proven innovations and tools, including the successful use of electronic delivery 

of quarterly benefit statements under the Department's interim PPA guidance in Field 

Assistance Bulletin 2006-03. We strongly support reexamining the 2002 rule and urge a 

comprehensive and expeditious review.
The recent regulations did NOT weaken the rights provided by the FMLA. 

They required employers to provide better notification to employees of their FMLA rights;

Clarified that “serious health condition” to mean two visits to a health care provider in 30 

days instead of the much shorter time periods between visits imposed by some employers 

and one court of appeals decision;

Clarified that when an employee is on light duty they’re at work, not on FMLA leave;

Improved the medical certification process to remove the “gotcha game” some employers 

use to deny workers FMLA leave; and

Explicitly put employers on notice that they must follow HIPAA privacy rules when seeking 

medical information from the health care providers of employees and that they can only seek 

additional information to authenticate or clarify medical information already provided by the 

employee.

The statute provides that an employer may require that a request for FMLA leave be 

supported by a sufficient medical certification issued by an employees’ health care provider, 

including the appropriate medical facts regarding the condition.

Under the regulations, employers are explicitly required to follow the HIPAA privacy rules 

when asking for any medical information from an employee’s health care provider. This 

means that the employee will have to authorize their health care provider to share 

information before their employer receives it.

Moreover, an employer cannot make any contact with an employee's health care provider 

until the employer has first given the employee notice, in writing, about what is missing or 

insufficient in the employee's medical certification AND given the employee a chance to cure 

the deficiency on their own.

Further, under the rule, when an employer does contact an employee’s health care provider, 

they can only seek additional information to (1) authenticate the signature and information on Given the recent GAO report on the ability of DOL to conduct accurate prevailing wage 

survey's for construction workers under the Davis-Bacon Act, DOL should have to use BLS, 

Census, or BEA survey data when making their determinations.

I strongly disagree with the Recordkeeping Rules under FLSA -- 29 C.F.R. Part 516, 

recommendation

1)Another regulatory requirement on employers will not make those “employers in the lowestpaying jobs [that] persist in failing to make or retain payroll records of any kind” follow the 

law it they are not already following the law as you claim. This recommendation would just 

increase the cost of compliance for employers that are already following the law.

2)Since “employers in 38 states are already required to provide their workers with an 

itemized wage statement at each pay period containing a range of information from hours 

worked, overtime pay, gross and net wages, allowances, deductions, and covered pay 

periods” and we still have all of the problems you say we do, another federal regulation is 

probably not going to solve the problem to seek to address.
To Whom It May Concern:

We agree with the National Employment Law’s (NELP) comment on the Department of 

Labor’s false trade off in regulatory assessment. We agree that the regulatory process that 

protects workers and fostering economic growth are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, they 

complement each other. Workers who suffer wage violations lose substantial income. The 

taxes companies evade by classifying employees as independent contractors cost taxpayers 

millions in lost revenue. We agree with NELP that it is about smarter enforcement of laws 

already on the books by recognizing changes in our economy, in order to protect the health 

and welfare of workers, as well as foster economic growth.

Current record keeping regulations do not require information to be made available to 

employees, nor do they require employers to keep a record of the employees they hired as 

independent contractors. Furthermore, they don’t require employers to tell workers when 

their status has changed from employee to independent contractor. We agree with NELP 

that these record keeping regulations are “outmoded and insufficient.” According to NELPL, 

giving workers information about their employment status, hours, and compensation will 

enable workers to better determine whether they have been paid properly under the FLSA.

In 1974, Congress extended FLSA coverage to domestic workers, but made an exception 

from both minimum wage and overtime for “casual” baby-sitters and workers who provide 

“companionship services” to the elderly or disabled. We agree with NELP that the 

Department of Labor erroneously expanded the scope of the exception far beyond simple 

companionship. The types of services congress meant to exempt bears little resemblance 

to today’s homecare workers. The homecare industry is growing quickly, leaving many 

workers without minimum wage or overtime protection. We agree with NELP that workers 

performing more than companionship services should be covered. We agree with NELP that 

sub-contracting employees (joint employers) should be held accountable for the wage and 

hour violations of their subcontractors. Expanding family involvement in the OSHA investigation process is essential. 

To accomplish this - OSHA can propose a regulation to cover post citation process.

Thank you for your comment. 

Note that the deadline for all suggestions and comments has been extended until Friday, 

April 8th.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes.

Thank you for your comment.

You cannot attach a file but you can include a link with your comment if one exists.
The criminal code needs to be changed or updated similar to the Westray ammendment in 

Canada to allow criminal penalties (jail time for CEOs and Managers not just fines) to be 

imposed on corporations that fail to provide the basic right granted workers under 5(a)(1) of 

the OSHAct.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes

Fines are larger for killing a protected animal than they are for injuring or killing workers that 

are suppposed to be protected according to 5(a)(1) of the OSHAAct. Apply the law of the 

land. If you break the law and a worker is injured or killed as a result you go to jail. Currently 

it is not cost effective for a company to obey the law.

Revise 2520.103-1 through 12 which is the basis for the 5500. However, the content of the 

form is driven by regulators, not an actual regulation. But, reporting delayed distributions is 

regulatory (what will be in Form 8955) and maybe that should be pushed back to only report 

those who have delayed payments of 2 or more years. Also, revising the SAR (2520.10b-10) 

would be appropriate as the information being conveyed to participants it's virtually 

meaningless. Elimination of the SAR would require a statutory change but the content could 

be modified by regulatory guidance. 

Exemplifies the numerous problems raised by others. A plan is not required to have directed 

investments. It's optional - and there's nothing prohibiting the inclusion of this education in 

the SPD. A mandate, however, makes it worse. A 300 page SPD is useless. If it were 

provided electronically with links so a participant can drill down into the info he/she wants 

would be more efficient. But alas, the general default is paper delivery unless someone 

consents to electronic (that requires action - and inaction is pretty much the norm these 

days). So much for that idea. Or, perhaps a thought that this financial literacy is something 

that may be useful even outside of a retirement plan. Alas, no initiative in this country to do 

that either. Imposing this burden on retirement plans. OK -- but alas, that means more to do 

and more fees and that's bad (in fact, we now need to deliver more info so we can show how 

your retirement savings are being spent to educate folks who don't want education). 

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes

Without strong quick protection from discrimination workers are afraid to report an injury or 

file a safety and health complaint. Under reporting or non reporting becomes an epidemic of 

pain and suffering. BLS statics become inaccurate.

Workers and their representatives are the experts on their jobs. They see what is not safe 

and what regulations are being abused on a daily basis. They should be allowed more 

involvement. The workers are the ones being exposed and injured their input must be 

considered. Workers bring a better understanding of the application of the regulation to their 

specific workplace. Including worker reperesentatives is necessary to guard against employer 

retaliation and discrimination.
I have 16 years experience of full-time Form 5500 preparation. Often, when I take in new 

clients and review their prior year filings, there are many errors and schedules that do not 

make sense within that schedule and when compared to other schedules. Either the DOL 

needs to review the filings (especially for DB, DC and master trust filings) and send inquiries 

back to the plan sponsor or create a 5500 specific test that is required to be passed by 

preparers. 

Participants hate the dryness of reading an SPD, much less adding another 10 pages on 

elementary investment education information.

The real issue is not whether investment education and information is readily available to 

make informed decisions, but that participants are broke and employers have little incentive 

to fund large contributions, especially when health-care premiums go up 20% a year or 

more!

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes.

The 5500 probably isn't the best place to report pre-2009 accounts. Also, the definition of 

large plan should be modified for 403(b) plans due to the universal availability provision. 

You are assuming that the treating physician's opinion is truthful, which we know from 

experience is not always a correct assumption to make.

Kogel73, You are wrong! The absolute last thing on earth we need is to have EFCA 

implemented. Unless, of course, you'd rather all jobs be moved oversees or to Mexico with 

the rest of them. If I were the employer subject to EFCA that is precisely what I would do too. 

I'd move ship before having my hands tied with yet another radical muscle-flexing law such 

as EFCA. Positive? Pathetic!

If the Dept. of Labor had followed President Clinton's Executive Order 13179 to the letter, 

many families would not be put through so much turmoil trying to prove employment with the 

AEC when these families had few, if any records from so many years back. It is very sad to 

learn what was done to those records, and what the government was hiding. There are still 

too many families who need to be compensated, and I feel the Dept. of Labor needs to do a 

lot of soul searching. They certainly do not embrace the spirit of the law (EEOICPA) and 

have brought much mistrust of the government and just how it handles some of these 

claims. Ms Terrie Barrie was right on with her implications that there needs to be oversight 

of the Dept. of Labor, and more facts exposed so that families that had been held to secrecy 

can advance their claims with fairness. There also needs to be less dragging out of the 

claims, and a time limit to bring claims to a just closing.
EEOICPA definitely needs outsider reviews. So many files are missing and it is very difficult 

for the claimant to get information. There is a large amount of errors in the files sent to 

NIOSH/or DMC. And also information NOT sent. The SEMS/Jobs data base is incomplete 

with buildings, job classifications, etc. omitted.

 Many cases have been denied because of SEMS. Claims examiners should be better 

trained and to accept Private Doctor's letter and diagnoses before a "For Hire DMC"... Errors 

should be corrected in files. Lost files are a major problem.

 Claimants needs more transparency with their claims. Also the lack of files, missing 

years, wrong people in claimants files cause problems.

 When excessive monies are spent to deny a claim with documents proving 

exposures...... when this amount if double or triple the actual claims compensation, 

something is definitely wrong with the program. Starting at the top changes need to be 

made to conform to the intent of Congress..... and new updated mandates added to keep 

abreast of changes in program.

Lets talk EFCA,...EFCA prevents talking; it would eliminate the election process where 

employers and employees are able discuss freely their view on whether or not unionrepresenttion is the right choice for their circumstances (within certain restictions that the 

employer must abide by). It would also force arbitation after a short period if a contract is not 

agreed upon. An arbitrator deciding the wages and working conditions and forced, more 

unionionization is not the way to keep our businesses and our workforce competitive in this 

global economy. 

We need to continue to foster a workforce is highly trained, flexible, innovative, and 

productive. Education and skills development are the way to maintain and improve lifestyle 

and middle class in today's service and knowledge based economy. 

The countries that need unions now are China, India, and other emerging nations to bring 

their wages and working conditions up to our standards so that is an equal playing field. 

I just investigated the death of a UAW member killed by Hazardous Energy Last Week. I 

invite the commenter to accept a job doing machine maintenance in an idustrial facility 

before suggesting revocation of so-called 'redundant' protections.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes.
Let's begin by assuring ALL DOL communications are clear & consise. "Retrospective 

review..." serves to obfuscate rather than clarify the author's intent. A better language format 

might be "What method should be used to prioritize existing regulations for review?" As one 

of my English teachers told us, "seek to impress your listeners with your clarity, not your 

vocabulary".

How should we prioritize? I'd suggest we focus on any new reg that did not go thru a full 

review by those subject to it and/or any regs that are causing calls & letters to DOL offices 

asking for interpretation. If no one is questioning, it's probably a clearly written regulation. 

(and yes, I realize technical writing may be challenging but a cooperative effort by American 

industry & government can handle any challenge!)

Thank you for your comment. Please let us know how you would like to see a current DOL 

regulation change to reflect your issue.

Local contractors do have a say in the prevailing wage. It depends significantly on where you 

are working. If you ar working in a predominately unionized municipality or state, then more 

than likely local contractors are already paying union wages in the private and public sector. 

If you are in a right-to-work state, local contractors are given the opportunity to submit what 

wages they are paying for particular crafts in the private sector. The DOL then considers this 

information when determining the new wage order. Also, to respond to your point, 

developing a prevailing wage in the public sector actually levels the playing field between 

small and large contractors. If the wages on public projects were left solely up to the free 

enterprise market, larger contractors would hold the advantage just like any other industry.

Thank you for your comment.

Please target your comment toward potential regulatory changes