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.com4/8/2011 15:34 120 gyoung gyoung@eric.org

4/8/2011 15:00 119 halprin.khlaw halprin.khlaw@gmail.com4/8/2011 14:50 118 laurie_miller laurie_miller@americanchemistry.com4/8/2011 14:32 117 Community Mem ber dvagins@dcaclu.org4/8/2011 14:13 116 fgraves fgraves@nwlc.org4/8/2011 14:06 115 fgraves fgraves@nwlc.org4/8/2011 14:01 114 fgraves fgraves@nwlc.org4/8/2011 13:53 113 Community Mem ber nancy.hammer@shrm.org

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

an richardson.susan@dol.gov4/8/2011 13:28 111 davisfl davisfl@gmail.com4/8/2011 12:40 110 jhammersla jhammersla@abcstaff.org4/8/2011 12:36 109 blurye blurye@aflcio.org4/8/2011 12:06 108 lflanagan lflanagan@dclrs.com

4/8/2011 10:52 107 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net4/8/2011 10:50 106 twilder twilder@ahip.org

4/8/2011 10:44 105 twilder twilder@ahip.org4/8/2011 10:43 104 twilder twilder@ahip.org

4/8/2011 10:42 103 twilder twilder@ahip.org4/8/2011 10:40 102 twilder twilder@ahip.org

4/8/2011 10:38 101 twilder twilder@ahip.org4/8/2011 10:36 100 twilder twilder@ahip.org4/8/2011 10:05 99 Community Mem ber blawrence@aila.org4/8/2011 9:51 98 michael.peters

on michael.peterson@hrpolicy.org4/8/2011 9:08 97 jcasper jcasper@nssga.org

4/8/2011 8:42 96 Community Mem ber cooper.leslie.c@dol.gov

4/8/2011 7:31 95 rachelb rachelb@nafsa.org4/8/2011 7:06 94 Community Mem ber quamie@civilrights.org

4/7/2011 18:35 93 Community Mem ber blawrence@aila.org4/7/2011 13:49 92 mjohnson mjohnson@nationalpartnership.org4/7/2011 11:36 91 Community Mem ber bach308.22@hotmail.com4/7/2011 11:09 90 oconnorta oconnorta@gmail.com

4/7/2011 10:03 89 Community Mem ber Liska@atlanticbb.net4/7/2011 9:39 88 Community Mem ber Liska@atlanticbb.net

4/7/2011 7:26 86 Darius Sivin dsivin@uaw.net4/6/2011 17:13 85 jminear jminear@lawmh.com4/6/2011 15:15 84 jminear jminear@lawmh.com4/6/2011 15:11 83 Community Mem ber shannonsalinas@acli.com4/6/2011 15:07 82 Community Mem ber shannonsalinas@acli.com

4/5/2011 13:04 81 Community Mem ber rmatuga@nahb.com4/5/2011 8:45 80 blawrence blawrence@aila.org

4/5/2011 8:10 79 blawrence blawrence@aila.org4/5/2011 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.org4/5/2011 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.com4/1/2011 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.org3/31/2011 14:41 61 brian brian@fsround.org

3/31/2011 13:02 60 jason.schwartz jason.schwartz@nyu.edu3/31/2011 11:06 59 mkastner mkastner@tfi.org3/31/2011 10:33 58 claude.golden claude.golden@gmail.com3/31/2011 6:56 57 pseminar pseminar@aflcio.org

3/31/2011 6:27 56 barrywalke barrywalke@gmail.com3/30/2011 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.com3/30/2011 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.net3/30/2011 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.com3/30/2011 8:44 40 nancy.hamme

r nancy.hammer@shrm.org3/30/2011 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.com3/30/2011 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.com3/29/2011 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.com3/29/2011 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.com3/29/2011 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.com3/27/2011 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.com3/21/2011 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.com3/18/2011 8:36 8 kogel73 kogel73@gmail.com

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

3/17/2011 9:12 6 Mark W ilson 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 SubmissionsWhat 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 Wa lking/Workin g Surfaces and Fall Protection StandardsWhat process should be used to

prioritize existing regulations for retrospective review? 1 1 0 0 ACC Comments on Retrospective Review of DOL OSHA RegulationsWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 0 0 0 0 Comments from the American Civil Liberties UnionWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 National Women's Law Center Comments on Specific RegulationsWhat data or indicators suggest that

the estimated costs and benefits of a regulation should be reviewed? 1 1 0 0 National Women's Law Center Comments on Costs and BenefitsWhat process should be used to

prioritize existing regulations for retrospective review? 1 1 0 0 National Women's Law Center Comments on Review PrioritiesWhat 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, OWCPWhat process should be used to

prioritize existing regulations for retrospective review? 0 0 0 0 ASA comments on DOL's RFI Implementing Executive Order 13563What DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 3 3 0 0 American Benefits Council commentsWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 AFL-CIO Comments on WH D, ETA & EBSA regulationsWhat 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 UAWWhat 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 DisclosuresWhat 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 BehaviorWhat 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 BenefitsWhat process should be used to

prioritize existing regulations for retrospective review? 0 0 0 0 Process to Prioritize Rules for ReviewWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 Comments from the American Immigration Lawyers AssociationWhat regulations should be reviewed

due to conflicts or inconsistencies among its agencies or with other federal agencies? 0 0 0 0 Badly Outdated FLSA Regs Need Serious Consideration and RevisionWhat 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 CommentsWhat 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 ReviewWhat process should be used to

prioritize existing regulations for retrospective review? 4 2 2 1 NPW F Recommendati

onsWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 4 0 4 0 Amend claims regulation to notify when stat. of limiataions endsWhat 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 541.202What 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 UAWHow can DOL best assure that its

regulations are guided by objective scientific evidence? 2 1 1 2 Prevailing Wage DeterminationsWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 PERM Labor Certification Sunday AdvertisementsWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 2 2 0 0 ACLI comments: modification of various regulations under ERISAWhat 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 RegulationsWhat 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 ConditionApplicationsNotice/ShortTerm PlacementWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 4 4 0 0 LaborCertificationAudit Procedures

What DOL regulations, guidance, interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 LaborCertificationProcessing 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 LaborCertificationSupervised Recruitment

What DOL regulations, guidance, interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 LaborCertificationAnti-Fraud Regulations

What DOL regulations, guidance, interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 LaborCertificationReinstate "Harmless Error"What DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 LaborCertificationSunday Ads

What DOL regulations, guidance, interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 1 1 0 0 LaborCertificationRecuitment 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 regulationsWhat 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 ALLOW ING 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 PROGRAMWhat 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 PlanWhat DOL regulations, guidance,

interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification? 41 40 1 0 "Process Safety Management” Standard InterpretationWhat regulations could achieve the

intended result using less costly

methods, technology, or innovative techniques? 0 0 0 0 OSHA Regulatory ImprovementWhat 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 ProcessWhat 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 RegulationsWhat 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 UAWWhat 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 discriminationWhat process should be used to

prioritize existing regulations for retrospective review? 7 7 0 1 Public & Stakeholders need more time to provide

meaningful inputWhat 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 - PenaltiesWhat 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 signaturesWhat 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 WellnessWhat 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 WH CRA 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 DisclosureWhat 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 settlementWhat 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 em ployee 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 ImprovementsWhat 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 WorksWhat 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 onApril 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: Weare 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

em ployee 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. Moreimportantly, 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). W e 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’sApril 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. W e 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

em ployment, 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. NW LC 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. W OMEN 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

em ployment, 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 aThe 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

em ployment, 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’sApril 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 202-289-6700The 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 moreeffective 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 W age 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 W HD 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 hisApril 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." W e 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 theelectronic 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 EmployeeBenefits Survey, to measure the costs of compliance and whether more costeffective implementation could be achieved. The DOL should also take steps tovalidate 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. W e 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 theOutlined 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. ELIMINA

TE DUPLICA

TIVE ST ANDARDS

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. W ith 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.pdfThe 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 W omen & 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 W omen & 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.

Weurge 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

em ployees 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.” TheROBERT J. BACH

ATTORNEY A

T LAW 60 EAST 42ND STREET 40TH FLOOR NEWYORK, NY 10165 212 867 - 4455 212 687 - 2123 (FAX) rjbachesq@hotmail.com April 7, 201 1

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 issuesOSHA’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. W e 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) W hen no data exists in the HED for the relevant occupational classification, DOL often applies20 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. W e 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 Taskforce1) 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. W hile 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. W e 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 comment1) 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

em ployees. 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=155570The 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

em ergency 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

em ployee 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. W hile 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

em ployers 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 W ORKTIME [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, W H 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 W H 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 W H 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 W ORKERS IS W HAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY WAY IN THESE TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES. ONE HAS TO W ONDER W HO 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 ALLOW ED TO FOREIGN W ORKERS TO BE ZERO. AMERICA DOES NOT NEED ANY FOREIGNERS TO COME HERE TO WORK. WE HAVE SEVERE PROBLEMS IN AMERICA W HEN W E HAVE NO JOBS FOR W ORKERS. AMERICANS ARE INGENIOUS ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN DO ANYTHING. W E DO NOT NEED FOREIGN W ORKERS. STOP ALL THE H1BS, ALL THE H2BS, ALL THE MYRIAD OF PROGRAMS THAT ALLOW IN FOREIGNERS TO W ORK HERE. IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT COMPANIES MOVE OVERSEAS. W E SHOULD NOT ALSO ALLOWFORIEGNERS 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

UFCWstrongly supports OSHA’s rulemaking on Comprehensive Combustible Dust Standard

UFCWInternational 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. W e 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.

UFCWsupports OSHA’s promulgation of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule. UFCWInternational 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. UFCWsupports OSHA’s efforts to strengthen and clarify current OSHA standards for W alking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (i.e. Fall Protection). However, UFCWopposes three proposed changes because they would be detrimental to the safety of workers represented by the UFCW

. First, UFCWopposes 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 inDear 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 LawThe 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

em ployer 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

em ployers to focus resources on the exposures of greatest occupational health

concern.

Werequest OSHA develop similar exemption thresholds for the 29 CFRI 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

em ployers and would lead to quicker processing of cases. 2. To provide for readvertisement of job positions when the initial ads are deem ed 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. Weknow 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. W hile 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.

o Eliminate 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.o Eliminate 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 –

o Eliminate 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 Wa lking/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 W age 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 aRevise 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

em ployee 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. W e 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

em ployers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing and certification boards to comply with requirements of Federal law prohibiting

em ployment 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

em ployees are adequately trained. Employers tend to remedailize the training which leads to employee exposures.

Wh ile 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. W hat 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. W hat 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 HIP AA 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 W HCRA 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 W hom 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)ASPP A 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. W e also recommend that DOL appoint a committee of experts to review and suggest modifications to the audit guidelines for 403(b) plans. 2)ASPP A 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)ASPP A 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

seem s 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. W hy have two different branches conducting wage surveys? W hy 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 W orker 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

em ployee 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

em ployees 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. W e 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.gov4/8/2011 9:02 0 Community Member cooper.leslie.c@dol.gov4/8/2011 8:59 0 Community Member cooper.leslie.c@dol.gov4/8/2011 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.net4/6/2011 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.gov3/31/2011 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.com3/29/2011 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 W ilson mwilson@appliedeconstrategies.com

3/23/2011 5:45 0 junebouillon junebouillon@beckoil.com

3/22/2011 18:49 0 pjmmam1927 pjmmam1927@aol.com3/22/2011 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.gov3/17/2011 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.

Wesupport 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. W orkers 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 theDear 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.

Wesupport 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. W orkers 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. W e 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.

Wesupport 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. W orkers 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. W e 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

em ployee.

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, recommendation1)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 W hom It May Concern:

Weagree with the National Employment Law’s (NELP) comment on the Department of Labor’s false trade off in regulatory assessment. W e agree that the regulatory process that protects workers and fostering economic growth are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, they complement each other. W orkers 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

em ployees, 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. W e 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. W e 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. W e 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 W estray 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. Exem plifies 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

em ployers 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

em ployer 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.

Weneed 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 UAWmember killed by Hazardous Energy Last W eek. 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 "W hat 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