Consider requiring the OWCP to recognize an employee’s authorized representative or an executor of the estate for an employee that has died before all of their medical bills have been authorized and paid.
Shaping Smarter Regulations
Thanks to everyone who has posted your ideas and comments! Please continue to submit your ideas to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Department of Labor’s Regulatory Agenda will bring opportunity and economic security to working families, job-seekers, and retirees. As the Department pursues these regulatory efforts, we want to be smart about the way that we regulate.
That’s why the Department is always reviewing existing regulations to ensure that we address any rules that may be out of date, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and for potential opportunities to modify, streamline, expand, or even repeal rules based on what we have learned.
Over the past five years, we have identified several of these rules, and have taken steps to streamline our regulations. For example, OSHA has published three Standards Improvement Projects (SIPs) that are intended to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety and health standards, and is now working on a fourth. We believe that these standards have reduced the compliance costs and eliminated or reduced the paperwork burden for a number of OSHA’s standards. And best of all, these projects have been a win-win, because OSHA only considers making such changes to its standards so long as they do not diminish employee protections.
We need your help to help find other opportunities to shape smarter regulations! Please consider posting your input on the questions below by April 1, 2015 (note the extended deadline):
- Which of the Department’s regulations, guidance, or interpretations should be considered for review, expansion or modification?
- What regulations and reporting requirements should be reviewed due to conflicts, inconsistencies, or duplication among our own agencies or with other federal agencies?
- What reporting requirements and information collections can be streamlined or reduced in frequency while achieving the same level of protections for workers, job-seekers, and retirees? Are there less costly methods, advances in technology, or innovative techniques that can be leveraged toward these purposes?
- What regulatory reforms may require short-term cost increases to the regulated entities while creating longer-term savings, for example, through the adoption of new technologies? What information, data, or technical assistance do regulated entities need in order to better assess these opportunities?
- How should the Department capture changes in firm and market behavior in response to a regulation?
- What data or other indicators suggest that the estimated costs and benefits of an existing regulation should be reviewed?
- What other strategies exist for increasing the flexibility of regulations without limiting important protections? What information, data, or other technical assistance do stakeholders require in order to better assess the long-term impact of these reforms upon such protections?
As you answer these questions, it may help to consider areas marked by rapid technological change in a sector that could influence the structure and need for the regulation, whether the chosen regulatory approach will impose large ongoing costs on regulated entities, whether the agency is regulating in an area of significant uncertainty that may be lowered with a future retrospective study, and other conditions. Of course, we won’t be able to act on every idea immediately, but we look forward to considering your input in our ongoing internal review process.
Thanks for helping the Department of Labor find more ways to shape smarter regulations!
There is currently no federal requirement that employers give workers paystubs. As many as 20 million U.S. workers do not receive documentation that outlines how their pay is calculated or what deductions were taken from their wages. It is often the case that those who do not receive paystubs are the ones most likely to be victims of wage theft. The U.S. Department of Labor already requires employers to keep records ...more »
The Final Rules which govern the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program should be changed to reflect Congressional intent to compensate workers who developed serious and sometimes fatal diseases from exposures to toxic substances at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons facilities. Below are a few suggestions that will help achieve this goal. Reword section 30.111 to remove the claimant's burden ...more »
There are a number of aspects of the PERM regulations (Program Electronic Review Management used in the Labor Certification process for permanent residency sponsorship by employers) that continue to require revision, so they are updated and modernized, none of which have been addressed since the 2011 regulatory review process: 20 CFR Part 656 currently has no agency timelines for adjudications, audits or appeals. When ...more »
DOL should issue a regulation prohibiting employer policies, practices, and programs that discourage the reporting of job injuries and illnesses. Employers, workers, governments, and the public need accurate data on work-related injuries and illnesses in order to identify their causes, implement controls, and assess their effectiveness. OSHA and MSHA should each issue a regulation that (1) requires employers to inform ...more »
The Industrial Minerals Association - North America (IMA-NA) suggests that MSHA’s fall protection standard be updated to advise against the use of safety belts as an acceptable form of personal protection against falls. OSHA long-ago made this change as evidenced in 1926.502(d): "Personal fall arrest systems." Personal fall arrest systems and their use shall comply with the provisions set forth below. Effective January ...more »
As an HR professional for over 35 years, my biggest frustration is each sub-department/committee (OFCCP vs EEOC vs DOL overall) in the DOL has their own requirements for eligibility; in particular the number of employees (full-time vs part-time) and duration for records retention. Could the DOL review eligibility requirements and try to standardize just to make it easier to understand?
One of the most difficult issues for fragrance companies like mine, and for a number of other industries, is the treatment of small or sample sized products under the Hazard Communication Standard. While other jurisdictions like Canada and the European Union allowed for special accommodation for small bottles, OSHA has not allowed for an exemption. The result is a new, arduous, costly and incredibly burdensome process ...more »
Add requirement to maintain written certification of reclassification for one year consistent with requirements for confined space entry permits. The permit space standard requires that you document the basis of reclassification, but does not require that you maintain the record. When assessing compliance with this requirement, there is no means of confirming the written documentation, if it is immediately destroyed. ...more »
OSHA needs to do a safe patient handling regulation. Healthcare workers are injured at a very high rate when manually lifting and repositioning patients. This is the single biggest cause of injury in one of the largest industrial sectors and the agency should act. NPR just did a 4 part series on the problem and several states already have their own regulations. This problem will only get worse with an aging workforce, ...more »
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has published an NPRM which would require federal subcontractors to submit to the federal government employee summary compensation data collected in an “Equal Pay Report” (EPR). (Though the rule is not yet final, we include it in this submission because the comment period has closed (as of January 5, 2015) and the RFI only prohibits review of “DOL rulemakings currently ...more »
Add a sentence to clarify reclassification of a permit-required confined space to paragraph (c)(7) of 1910.146. A notation like, A permit-required space that has been reclassified using the procedures below becomes a permit-required space again once the hazards are reintroduced to the permit space. As it written, so many employers interpret this to be a one-time change which is permanent. That is that once the permit ...more »