27366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

as the SMART Office may require to 

make this determination. 

If a jurisdiction’s Byrne Justice 

Assistance Grant funding is reduced 

because of non-implementation of 

SORNA, it may regain eligibility for full 

funding in later program years by 

substantially implementing SORNA in 

such later years. The SMART Office will 

continue to work with all jurisdictions 

to ensure substantial implementation of 

SORNA and verify that they continue to 

meet the requirements of SORNA on an 

ongoing basis. 

IV. Retroactive Classes 

SORNA’s requirements apply to all 

sex offenders, regardless of when they 

were convicted. See 28 CFR 72.3. 

However, the SORNA Guidelines state 

that it will be deemed sufficient for 

substantial implementation if 

jurisdictions register sex offenders with 

pre-SORNA or pre-SORNAimplementation sex offense convictions 

who remain in the system as prisoners, 

supervisees, or registrants, or who 

reenter the system through a subsequent 

criminal conviction. See 73 FR at 

38035–36, 38043, 38046–47, 38063–64. 

This feature of the Guidelines reflects an 

assumption that it may not be possible 

for jurisdictions to identify and register 

all sex offenders who fall within the 

SORNA registration categories, 

particularly where they have left the 

justice system and merged into the 

general population long ago, but that it 

will be feasible for jurisdictions to do so 

in relation to sex offenders who remain 

in the justice system or reenter it 

through a subsequent criminal 

conviction. See 73 FR at 38046. 

Experience supports a qualification of 

this assumption in relation to sex 

offenders who have fully exited the 

justice system but later reenter it 

through a subsequent criminal 

conviction for a non-sex offense that is 

relatively minor in character. (Where 

the subsequent conviction is for a sex 

offense it independently requires 

registration under SORNA.) In many 

jurisdictions the volume of 

misdemeanor prosecutions is large and 

most such cases may need to be 

disposed of in a manner that leaves little 

time or opportunity for examining the 

defendant’s criminal history and 

ascertaining whether it contains some 

past sex offense conviction that would 

entail a present registration requirement 

under SORNA. In contrast, where the 

subsequent offense is a serious crime, 

ordinary practice is likely to involve 

closer scrutiny of the defendant’s past 

criminal conduct, and ascertaining 

whether it includes a prior conviction 

requiring registration under SORNA 

should not entail an onerous new 

burden on jurisdictions. 

These supplemental guidelines 

accordingly are modifying the 

requirements for substantial 

implementation of SORNA in relation to 

sex offenders who have fully exited the 

justice system, i.e., those who are no 

longer prisoners, supervisees, or 

registrants. It will be sufficient if a 

jurisdiction registers such offenders 

who reenter the system through a 

subsequent criminal conviction in cases 

in which the subsequent criminal 

conviction is for a felony, i.e., for an 

offense for which the statutory 

maximum penalty exceeds a year of 

imprisonment. This allowance is 

limited to cases in which the 

subsequent conviction is for a non-sex 

offense. As noted above, a later 

conviction for a sex offense 

independently requires registration 

under SORNA, regardless of whether it 

is a felony or a misdemeanor. 

This allowance only establishes the 

minimum required for substantial 

implementation of SORNA in this 

context. Jurisdictions remain free to 

look more broadly and to establish 

systems to identify and register sex 

offenders who reenter the justice system 

through misdemeanor convictions, or 

even those who do not reenter the 

system through later criminal 

convictions but fall within the 

registration categories of SORNA or the 

jurisdiction’s registration law. 

V. Newly Recognized Tribes 

SORNA affords eligible federallyrecognized Indian tribes a one-year 

period, running from the date of 

SORNA’s enactment on July 27, 2006, to 

elect whether to become SORNA 

registration jurisdictions or to delegate 

their registration functions to the states 

within which they are located. See 42 

U.S.C. 16927(a)(1), (2)(B); 73 FR at 

38049–50. In principle there is no 

reason why an Indian tribe that initially 

receives recognition by the Federal 

government following the enactment of 

SORNA should be treated differently for 

SORNA purposes from other federally 

recognized tribes. But if such a tribe is 

initially recognized more than a year 

after the enactment of SORNA, then the 

limitation period of § 16927 will have 

passed before the tribe became the kind 

of entity (a federally recognized tribe) 

that may be eligible to become a SORNA 

registration jurisdiction. 

Where the normal starting point of a 

statutory time limit for taking an action 

cannot sensibly be applied to a certain 

entity, the statute may be construed to 

allow the entity a reasonable amount of 

time to take the action. See Chicago & 

Alton R.R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 

67, 73–74 (1915); see also Taylor v. 

Horn, 504 F.3d 416, 426 (3d Cir. 2007) 

(running statutory time limit from later 

point where normal starting point was 

already past). 

This principle will be applied to 42 

U.S.C. 16927 to allow Indian tribes that 

receive Federal recognition following 

the enactment of SORNA a reasonable 

amount of time to elect whether to 

become SORNA registration 

jurisdictions as provided in that section, 

and to allow such tribes a reasonable 

amount of time for substantial 

implementation of SORNA if they elect 

to be SORNA registration jurisdictions. 

In assessing what constitutes a 

reasonable amount of time for these 

purposes, the Department of Justice will 

look to the amount of time SORNA 

generally affords for tribal elections and 

for jurisdictions’ implementation of the 

SORNA requirements. Hence, a tribe 

receiving Federal recognition after 

SORNA’s enactment that otherwise 

qualifies to make the election under 

§ 16927(a) will be afforded a period of 

one year to make the election, running 

from the date of the tribe’s recognition 

or the date of publication of these 

supplemental guidelines, whichever is 

later. Likewise, such a tribe will be 

afforded a period of three years for 

SORNA implementation, running from 

the same starting point, subject to up to 

two possible one-year extensions. See 

42 U.S.C. 16924. 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11665 Filed 5–12–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Labor-Management 

Standards 

OLMS Listens: Office of LaborManagement Standards Stakeholder 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management 

Standards, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Labor (DOL), Office of LaborManagement Standards (OLMS) hereby 

provides notice of a public meeting on 

a proposed change to OLMS’s 

regulations regarding reporting 

requirements for employers and 

consultants pursuant to section 203 of 

the Labor-Management Reporting and 

Disclosure Act (LMRDA), specifically 

with regard to the scope of the ‘‘advice 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27367 

exception’’ in section 203(c). The 

meeting will provide an opportunity for 

stakeholders and other interested parties 

to provide individual comments and 

suggestions. All interested parties are 

invited to participate. 

Public Meeting Date and Time: The 

meeting will be held on Monday, May 

24, 2010, from 10 a.m. until noon. 

Location: The site for the May 24th 

event will be U.S. Department of Labor, 

Frances Perkins Building Auditorium, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. 

To Register and Obtain Further 

Information: Please call Rosetta Kelly at 

(202) 693–0123 or register via e-mail at 

olms-public@dol.gov. If you wish to 

attend, please register by Monday, May 

17, 2010. When registering, you must 

provide your name, title, company or 

organization (if applicable), address, 

phone number and e-mail address. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

request accommodations when 

registering for the event. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LMRDA 

section 203 establishes reporting and 

disclosure requirements for employers 

and persons, including labor relations 

consultants, who enter into any 

agreement or arrangement whereby the 

consultant (or other person) undertakes 

activities to persuade employees as to 

their rights to organize and bargain 

collectively or to obtain certain 

information concerning the activities of 

employees or a labor organization in 

connection with a labor dispute 

involving the employer. Each party 

must disclose information concerning 

such agreement or arrangement, 

including related payments, and the 

employer, additionally, must disclose 

certain other payments, including 

payments to its own employees, to 

persuade employees as to their 

bargaining rights and to obtain certain 

information in connection with a labor 

dispute. 

Pursuant to regulations issued by the 

Department, an employer must file a 

Form LM–10, Employer Report, for each 

fiscal year in which it entered into such 

an agreement or arrangement, as well for 

each fiscal year in which it made any 

persuader payments, as required under 

section 203. Additionally, the 

consultant must file a Form LM–20, 

Agreement and Activities report, 

disclosing the agreement or 

arrangement. 

OLMS will seek comments on several 

significant matters concerning employer 

and consultant reporting pursuant to 

section 203. The first matter pertains to 

the so-called ‘‘advice exception’’ of 

LMRDA section 203(c), which provides, 

in part, that employers and consultants 

are not required to file a report by 

reason of the consultant’s giving or 

agreeing to give ‘‘advice’’ to the 

employer. Under current policy, as 

articulated in the LMRDA Interpretative 

Manual and in a Federal Register notice 

published on April 11, 2001 (66 FR 

18864), this so-called ‘‘advice exception’’ 

has been broadly interpreted to exclude 

from the reporting any agreement under 

which a consultant engages in activities 

on behalf of the employer to persuade 

employees concerning their bargaining 

rights but has no direct contact with 

employees, even where the consultant is 

orchestrating a campaign to defeat a 

union organizing effort. 

The Department views its current 

policy concerning the scope of the 

‘‘advice exception’’ as over-broad, and 

that a narrower construction will result 

in reporting that more closely reflects 

the employer and consultant reporting 

intended by the LMRDA. Regulatory 

action is needed to provide labormanagement transparency for the 

public, and to provide workers with 

information critical to their effective 

participation in the workplace. As a 

result, the Department announced in its 

Fall 2009 Regulatory Agenda the 

intention to engage in such rulemaking 

to narrow the scope of the ‘‘advice 

exception.’’ See: http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

200910&RIN=1215-AB79. 

Another exception to reporting is in 

section 203(e), which provides that no 

‘‘regular officer, supervisor, or employee 

of an employer’’ is required to file a 

report covering services undertaken as a 

‘‘regular officer, supervisor, or employee 

of an employer.’’ Further, the employer 

is not required to file a report covering 

expenditures made to a ‘‘regular officer, 

supervisor, or employee’’ as 

compensation for service as a ‘‘regular 

officer, supervisor, or employee.’’ The 

Department will seek comments on the 

application of this exemption to the 

scope of employer reporting under 

sections 203(a)(2) and (a)(3), which 

require employers to report payments to 

their own employees for purposes of 

causing them to persuade other 

employees as to their bargaining rights, 

and to report expenditures to ‘‘interfere 

with, restrain, or coerce employees’’ in 

their bargaining rights and to obtain 

information concerning activities of 

employees and labor organizations in 

connection with a labor dispute. 

Additionally, the Department will 

seek comments on whether electronic 

filing should be mandated for Form 

LM–10 and LM–20 reports. Currently, 

labor organizations that file the Form 

LM–2 Labor Organization Annual 

Report are required by regulation to file 

electronically, and there has been good 

compliance with these requirements. It 

is reasonably expected that employers 

and consultants will have the 

information technology resources and 

capacity to file electronically, as well. 

An electronic filing option is planned 

for all LMRDA reports as part of an 

information technology enhancement. 

Agenda: The public meeting will run 

from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on May 24, 

2010, at the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Frances Perkins Building Auditorium, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. All interested 

parties are invited to participate. The 

meeting will provide interested parties 

an opportunity to provide suggestions 

and recommendations to OLMS 

concerning employer and consultant 

reporting pursuant to section 203. In 

particular, comments will be solicited 

on the issues outlined above: The 

application of the ‘‘advice exemption’’ of 

LMRDA sections 203(c); the application 

of the ‘‘regular officer, supervisor, and 

employee’’ exemption of section 203(e); 

and the effect of a potential regulatory 

proposal requiring employers and 

consultants to submit reports 

electronically. The Department will seek 

comment, as well, regarding the layout 

of the Form LM–10 and LM–20 and the 

level of detail and itemization currently 

required to be reported on these forms. 

Finally, the Department invites 

information about how the use of labor 

relations consultants by employers has 

affected labor-management relations and 

about how persuader activity has 

changed since the enactment of the 

LMRDA. 

Public Participation: Registration for 

the public meeting is free. During the 

meeting, participants will be invited to 

come up to a microphone and provide 

comments on the topic being discussed. 

Authority and Signature: 

Signed in Washington, DC, May 10, 2010. 

John Lund, 

Director, Office of Labor-Management 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11498 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–CP–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting of the Board of 

Directors 

TIME AND DATE: The Board of Directors 

of the Legal Services Corporation will 

meet telephonically on May 19, 2010. 

The meeting will begin at 2 p.m. (ET), 

and continue until conclusion of the 

Board’s agenda. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES