OLMS Listens: Office of Labor-Management Standards Stakeholder Meeting, 27366-27367 [2010-11498]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
27366
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:07 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
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.
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 &
Dated: May 11, 2010.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[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
E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM
14MYN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:07 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
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: https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27367
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.
E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM
14MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27366-27367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11498]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Labor-Management Standards
OLMS Listens: Office of Labor-Management 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 Labor-
Management 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
[[Page 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 labor-management 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: https://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
