Rescission of Rule Interpreting “Advice” Exemption in Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 33826-33842 [2018-14948]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Office of Labor-Management Standards

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33826-33842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14948]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Labor-Management Standards

29 CFR Parts 405 and 406

RIN 1245-AA07


Rescission of Rule Interpreting ``Advice'' Exemption in Section 
203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule rescinds the regulations established in the 
final rule titled ``Interpretation of the `Advice' Exemption in Section 
203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act,'' 
effective April 25, 2016.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 17, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Davis, Chief of the Division of 
Interpretations and Standards, Office of Labor-Management Standards, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5609, 
Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-0123 (this is not a toll-free number), 
(800) 877-8339 (TTY/TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Authority

    Sections 203 and 208 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 432, 438, set forth 
the Department's authority. Section 208 gives the Secretary of Labor 
authority to issue, amend, and rescind rules and regulations 
prescribing the form and publication of reports required under Title II 
of the Act and such other reasonable rules and regulations as necessary 
to prevent circumvention or evasion of the reporting requirements. 29 
U.S.C. 438. Section 203, discussed in more detail below, sets out the 
substantive reporting obligations.
    The Secretary has delegated his authority under the LMRDA to the 
Director of the Office of Labor-Management Standards and permitted 
redelegation of such authority. See Secretary's Order 03-2012 (Oct. 19, 
2012), published at 77 FR 69375 (Nov. 16, 2012).

II. Background

A. Introduction

    In this final rule, the Office of Labor-Management Standards of the 
Department of Labor revises the Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities 
Report and the Form LM-10 Employer Report upon reviewing the comments 
the Department received in response to a June 12, 2017 Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. 82 FR 26877. The NPRM proposed to rescind the 
regulations established in the final rule titled ``Interpretation of 
the `Advice' Exemption in Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act,'' effective April 25, 2016. 81 FR 15924 
(Mar. 24, 2016) (``Persuader Rule'').
    This Persuader Rule revised the Department's interpretation of the 
``advice'' exemption to the reporting requirements of Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act Section 203. Sections 203(a) and (b) 
require employers and consultants to file reports when they reach an 
agreement

[[Page 33827]]

that the consultant will perform activities to persuade employees about 
how or whether to exercise their collective bargaining rights. But 
Section 203(c) excepts agreements by consultants who ``give advice'' to 
the employer. The Persuader Rule sought to require employers and their 
consultants to file a report not only when they make agreements or 
arrangements pursuant to which a consultant directly contacts 
employees, but also when a consultant engages in activities ``behind 
the scenes'' if an object of those activities is to persuade employees 
concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively. Id. at 
15925. Such ``behind the scenes'' activity included, for instance, 
recommending drafts of or revisions to an employer's speeches and 
communications if those drafts or revisions were designed to influence 
employees' exercise of their organizational rights.
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to rescind the Persuader Rule 
to further its consideration of the legal and policy objections raised 
by the federal courts that have reviewed the Rule and by other 
stakeholders. A number of comments objected to rescinding the Persuader 
Rule with a view toward engaging in further consideration. [LMSO-2017-
0001-0543, AFL-CIO pages 9-10; LMSO-2017-0001-0797, NABTU, page 4, 
LMSO-2017-0001-1126, UFCW, page 4].
    In accordance with these comments, the Department has now conducted 
its ultimate review of the objections to the Persuader Rule and has 
concluded that the Rule must be rescinded. The Rule relied on an 
inappropriate reading of Section 203(c) that required reporting based 
on recommendations that constitute ``advice'' under any reasonable 
understanding of the term. That fact alone requires rescission. Even if 
the statute does not unambiguously forbid the Persuader Rule, strong 
policy reasons--in particular, the Persuader Rule's effect on the 
attorney-client relationship--militate in favor of rescission.
    Pursuant to today's final rule, the reporting requirements in 
effect are the requirements as they existed before the Persuader Rule. 
Due to an intervening court order that enjoined the Persuader Rule 
nationwide, National Federation of Independent Business v. Perez (N.D. 
Tex. 5:16-cv-00066-c) (filed Mar. 31, 2016), 2016 WL 3766121, 206 
L.R.R.M. 35982016 (granting preliminary injunction); 2016 WL 8193279 
(filed Nov. 16, 2016) (granting permanent injunction) (NFIB), no 
reports were ever filed or due under the Persuader Rule.
    This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. 
For a perpetual time horizon, the annualized cost savings are the same 
at $92.89 million with a discount rate of 7 percent. Details of the 
estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the Rule's 
economic analysis.

B. The LMRDA's Reporting Requirements

    In enacting the LMRDA in 1959, a bipartisan Congress sought to 
protect the rights and interests of employees, labor organizations, 
employers, and the public generally as they relate to collective 
bargaining.
    Section 203(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 433(a), requires employers 
to report to the Department ``any agreement or arrangement with a labor 
relations consultant or other independent contractor or organization'' 
under which such person ``undertakes activities where an object 
thereof, directly or indirectly, is to persuade employees to exercise 
or not to exercise,'' or how to exercise, their rights to union 
representation and collective bargaining. 29 U.S.C. 433(a)(4).\1\ 
``[A]ny payment (including reimbursed expenses)'' pursuant to such an 
agreement or arrangement must also be reported. 29 U.S.C. 433(a)(5). 
The report must be one ``showing in detail the date and amount of each 
such payment, . . . agreement, or arrangement . . . and a full 
explanation of the circumstances of all such payments, including the 
terms of any agreement or understanding pursuant to which they were 
made.'' An employer must submit this information on the prescribed Form 
LM-10 within 90 days of the close of the employer's fiscal year. 29 
U.S.C. 433(a); 29 CFR part 405.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The LMRDA defines a ``labor relations consultant'' as ``any 
person who, for compensation, advises or represents an employer, 
employer organization, or labor organization concerning employee 
organizing, concerted activities, or collective bargaining 
activities.'' 29 U.S.C. 402(m).
    \2\ The statute and the Form LM-10 also require disclosure of 
financial activities that do not constitute persuader activities, 
such as payments or loans from an employer to a labor union or a 
labor union's official. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LMRDA Section 203(b) imposes a similar reporting requirement on 
labor relations consultants and other persons. It provides, in part, 
that every person who enters into an agreement or arrangement with an 
employer and undertakes activities where an object thereof, directly or 
indirectly, is to persuade employees to exercise or not to exercise, or 
how to exercise, their rights to union representation and collective 
bargaining ``shall file within thirty days after entering into such 
agreement or arrangement a report with the Secretary . . . containing . 
. . a detailed statement of the terms and conditions of such agreement 
or arrangement.'' 29 U.S.C. 433(b). Covered individuals must submit 
this information on the prescribed Form LM-20 (``Agreement and 
Activities Report'') within 30 days of entering into the reportable 
agreement or arrangement. See 29 U.S.C. 433; 29 CFR part 406.
    A third report is relevant here. Section 203(b) further requires 
that every labor relations consultant or other person who engages in 
reportable activity must file an additional report in each fiscal year 
during which payments were made as a result of reportable agreements or 
arrangements. The report must contain a statement (A) of the 
consultant's receipts of any kind from employers on account of labor 
relations advice or services, designating the sources thereof, and (B) 
of the consultant's disbursements of any kind, in connection with such 
services and the purposes thereof. The consultant must submit the 
information on the prescribed Form LM-21 (``Receipts and Disbursements 
Report'') within 90 days of the close of the labor relations 
consultant's fiscal year. See 29 U.S.C. 433(b); 29 CFR part 406.
    Since at least 1963, the reporting requirements have required 
reporting by the prescribed forms, Form LM-10, Form LM-20, and Form LM-
21. 28 FR 14384, Dec. 27, 1963; See 29 CFR part 405, 406.
    Section 203(c), referred to as the ``advice'' exemption, provides 
in pertinent part that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to 
require any employer or other person to file a report covering the 
services of such person by reason of his giving or agreeing to give 
advice to such employer.'' 29 U.S.C. 433(c). Finally, LMRDA Section 204 
exempts from reporting attorney-client communications, which are 
defined as ``information which was lawfully communicated to [an] . . . 
attorney by any of his clients in the course of a legitimate attorney-
client relationship.'' 29 U.S.C. 434. Even if a report is triggered by 
persuader activity, and a report must therefore be filed, material that 
is advice is not to be reported on the form.

C. Administrative and Regulatory History

    In 1960, one year after the LMRDA's passage, the Department issued 
its initial interpretation of Section 203(c)'s advice exemption. This 
interpretation appeared in a technical assistance publication for 
employers. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management

[[Page 33828]]

Reports,\3\ Technical Assistance Aid No. 4: Guide for Employer 
Reporting (1960). Under this original interpretation, the Department 
required employers to report any ``[a]rrangement with a `labor 
relations consultant' or other third party to draft speeches or written 
material to be delivered or disseminated to employees for the purpose 
of persuading such employees as to their right to organize and bargain 
collectively.'' Id. at 18. By contrast, employers were not required to 
report ``[a]rrangements with a `labor relations consultant,' or other 
third parties related exclusively to advice, representation before a 
court, administrative agency, or arbitration tribunal, or engaging in 
collective bargaining on [the employer's] behalf.'' Id. Additionally, 
in opinion letters to members of the public, the Department stated that 
a lawyer's or consultant's revision of a document prepared by an 
employer constituted reportable activity. See 76 FR 36178, 36180 (June 
21, 2011) (NPRM) (citing Benjamin Naumoff, Reporting Requirements under 
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, in Fourteenth Annual 
Proceedings of the New York University Conference on Labor 129, 140-141 
(1961)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Bureau of Labor-Management Reports was the predecessor 
agency to the Office of Labor-Management Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Just two years later, the Department revisited its interpretation, 
adopting the view that it was to hold for the next several decades. The 
Department's revised interpretation construed the advice exemption of 
Section 203(c) so as to no longer trigger reporting upon the provision 
of materials by a third party to an employer that the employer could 
``accept or reject.'' \4\ But a consultant who did present materials 
for the employer to accept or reject could trigger disclosure 
obligations by interacting with employees, either directly or through 
an agent. See Interpretative Manual section 265.005 (Scope of the 
Advice Exemption).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 81 FR at 15936 (quoting the agency's 1962 LMRDA 
Interpretive Manual as stating: ``In a situation where the employer 
is free to accept or reject the written material prepared for him 
and there is no indication that the middleman is operating under a 
deceptive arrangement with the employer, the fact that the middleman 
drafts the material in its entirety will not in itself generally be 
sufficient to require a report.'') (emphasis omitted).
    \5\ In 2001, the Department temporarily altered its 
interpretation of Section 203(c), expanding the scope of reportable 
activities by focusing on whether an activity has persuasion of 
employees as an object, rather than categorically exempting 
activities in which a consultant has no direct contact with 
employees. See 66 FR 2782 (Jan. 11, 2001). However, later that year, 
that interpretation was rescinded, and the Department returned to 
its prior view. See 66 FR 18864 (Apr. 11, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to revise its interpretation of Section 203(c). 76 FR 36178. 
The Department received approximately 9,000 comments. 81 FR at 15945. 
On March 24, 2016, the Department issued its final Rule, addressing the 
comments it received. See 81 FR at 15945-16,000 (Mar. 24, 2016).
    The Persuader Rule--the subject of this final rule--altered the 
prior, decades-long interpretation. The preamble to the Persuader Rule 
and the instructions on the relevant forms defined ``advice,'' which 
does not give rise to a reporting obligation, as ``an oral or written 
recommendation regarding a decision or a course of conduct.'' Id. at 
15,939, 16,028 (LM-10 instructions), 16,044 (LM-20 instructions). The 
Persuader Rule then defined four new categories of non-contact conduct 
that triggered reporting obligations when done with an object to 
persuade: Directing supervisor activity, providing material for 
employers to disseminate to employees, conducting tailored seminars on 
the issue of unionization, and developing or implementing personnel 
policies designed to influence unionization. 81 FR at 15938. (These 
categories were in addition to contact of employees by a consultant or 
a consultant's agent, which the Rule continued to cover.) Among the 
activities covered by the Persuader Rule's four new categories were 
providing messaging on unionization to employers, 81 FR at 15970; 
developing policies for employers to dissuade employees as to the need 
for a union (such as a longer lunch break or a more generous leave 
policy), 81 FR at 15973; drafting or revising written materials 
regarding unionization for employers to disseminate to employees, 81 FR 
at 15971; or planning ``captive audience'' meetings or scripting 
interactions between supervisors and employees, 81 FR at 15970.
    The Department thus construed the ``advice'' exemption more 
narrowly than it had done previously. In particular, it abandoned the 
position that developing speeches, communications, policies, and other 
proposals that an employer may decide to accept or reject constituted 
``advice'' that did not trigger the reporting requirement. Under the 
new rule, the fact that the employer itself delivered the message or 
carried out the policy developed by a consultant would no longer exempt 
a consulting arrangement from reporting. The stated purpose of this 
change was to ``more closely reflect the employer and consultant 
reporting intended by Congress in enacting the LMRDA.'' 81 FR at 16001. 
The Persuader Rule cited evidence that the use of outside consultants 
to contest union organizing efforts had proliferated, while the number 
of reports filed remained consistently small. 81 FR at 16001. The 
Department concluded that its previous ``broad interpretation of the 
advice exemption ha[d] contributed to this underreporting.'' Id.

D. Litigation Surrounding the Rule

    Shortly after it was issued, the Persuader Rule was challenged in 
three district courts and eventually enjoined on a nationwide basis. 
Plaintiffs in those suits contended that the Rule conflicts with the 
LMRDA, is arbitrary and capricious, violates the First Amendment, and 
is void for vagueness. Associated Builders & Contractors of Arkansas v. 
Perez (E.D. Ark. 4:16-cv-169); Labnet, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 197 
F. Supp. 3d 1159 (D. Minn. 2016); Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Perez, 
2016 WL 3766121 (N.D. Tex.). On June 22, 2016, the federal district 
court in Minnesota found that the plaintiffs were likely to establish 
that the Persuader Rule violated the LMRDA, in at least some of its 
applications, but denied their request for preliminary relief on the 
ground that plaintiffs had not shown the threat of irreparable harm. 
Labnet, 197 F. Supp. 3d at 1175-76. On June 27, 2016, a federal 
district court in Texas granted the challengers' motion for injunctive 
relief--finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the 
merits of both their statutory and constitutional claims--and issued a 
nationwide preliminary injunction, which was later converted to a 
permanent injunction. NFIB, 2016 WL 3766121, at *46; see also NFIB, 
2016 WL 8193279 (granting permanent injunction). The Department 
appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which has held the matter in abeyance 
pending this rulemaking. See NFIB, Dkt. No. 00514035358 (Dec. 27, 
2017). The other two court cases have also been stayed.

III. Determination To Rescind

    While the NPRM proposed rescission of the Persuader Rule to enable 
the Department to engage in further analysis, a further review of the 
record, including several comments urging that the Department complete 
its final analysis of the Persuader Rule now, have convinced the 
Department that the best course of action is to achieve

[[Page 33829]]

finality at this time.\6\ The Department's NPRM notified the public of 
the possible rescission of the Persuader Rule, and the concerns 
animating that proposed rescission, including the Department's concerns 
about ``alternative interpretations of the statute,'' ``the potential 
effects of the Rule on attorneys and employers seeking legal 
assistance,'' the potential increased ``burden of the Form LM-20,'' and 
``the impact of shifting priorities and resource constraints.'' 82 FR 
26879. The Department received 1,160 comments submitted via the 
www.regulations.gov website in response to its NPRM. Of this total, 
1,111 constituted non-substantive comments, including seven form 
letters.\7\ The remaining 49 comments were substantive in nature, 
submitted by labor organizations, trade associations, business and 
professional federations, law firms, public policy groups, and four 
Members of Congress. Many of the substantive comments, both supporting 
and opposing rescission, discussed the merits of the Persuader Rule's 
consistency with Section 203(c) and provided the commenters' views on 
the Department's prior interpretation of the advice exemption. A number 
of comments objected to the Department's proposal to rescind with a 
view to further consideration rather than making a final substantive 
determination at this time.\8\ Also, this same issue was evaluated at 
length in the Persuader Rule NPRM and final rule. The Department thus 
believes that it has received comments fully airing the substantive 
issues raised by the Persuader Rule, has completed its analysis of 
those issues, and will not engage in further analysis regarding its 
interpretation of Section 203(c) at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Several commenters noted that no further statutory analysis 
is needed given the Department's years of extensive analysis and 
study that initially led to the promulgation of the Persuader Rule. 
See Communication Workers of America [pp. 1-2]; Economic Policy 
Institute [pp. 4-5]; Ranking Members Scott and Sablan [p. 3].
    \7\ Additionally, the Department received 1,433 comments 
submitted via mail or email, all of which were duplicative of form 
letters that the Department also received properly via 
www.regulations.gov.
    \8\ LMSO-2017-0001-0543, AFL-CIO pages 9-10; LMSO-2017-0001-
0797, NABTU, page 4, LMSO-2017-0001-1126, UFCW, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received, and in light of the Department's 
legal and policy analysis, the Department has decided to rescind the 
Persuader Rule. The Department will continue to apply the longstanding 
interpretation of the advice exemption that predated the Persuader 
Rule.
    Four primary reasons lead the Department to its rescission 
decision. First, the Department has determined that Section 203(c)'s 
plain text clearly forbids the interpretation on which the Persuader 
Rule in part rested. Second, the Department has determined that the 
Persuader Rule unduly causes disclosure of client confidences that are 
at the heart of the attorney-client relationship. Third, the Department 
has concluded that the Form LM-21's requirements substantially 
increased the burden on filers of the Form LM-20--a cost that the 
Persuader Rule declined to factor into its analysis. Fourth, the 
Department has determined to allocate its scarce resources to other 
priorities rather than to addressing the substantial fiscal burdens 
that the Persuader Rule imposed on the Department.

A. The Persuader Rule Rested on a Misinterpretation of Section 203(c)

    Section 203(c) provides that the LMRDA's reporting obligation is 
not triggered by a consultant's ``giving or agreeing to give advice'' 
to an employer. The plain meaning of the term ``advice,'' as the 
Persuader Rule found, is ``an oral or written recommendation regarding 
a decision or course of conduct.'' 81 FR at 15926. Decisions about 
speech and written communications are among the subjects on which such 
``recommendations'' are frequently made. Sometimes such advice may take 
the form of a general discussion about what the employer should or 
should not say to its employees. But it may also consist of drafts of 
speeches or written communications. Such drafts, if given to an 
employer to accept or reject, are simply recommendations to the 
employer to communicate as laid out in the draft. The employer remains 
free to disregard these recommendations and communicate in any manner 
it sees fit. Because the employer in such a scenario is the one 
communicating with employees, and the consultant simply proffers 
recommendations about those communications, the consultant renders only 
``advice'' as that term is used in Section 203(c).
    The Persuader Rule required reporting based on such advice. For 
instance, the Persuader Rule explained that reporting is required when 
a consultant, who has no direct contact with employees, ``provides 
material or communications to the employer, in oral, written, or 
electronic form, for dissemination or distribution to employees.'' 81 
FR at 16027 (Mar. 24, 2016). Likewise, the Rule required reporting for 
``drafting, revising, or providing speeches'' and ``written material . 
. . for presentation, dissemination, or distribution to employees.'' 
Id.
    The Persuader Rule maintained that the ``preparation of persuader 
materials [such as speeches and written communications] is more than a 
recommendation to the employer that it should communicate its views to 
employees on matters affecting representation and their collective 
bargaining rights,'' 81 FR at 15951 (Mar. 24, 2016), but that analysis 
was mistaken. If the employer retains the ability to accept or reject 
the proffered communication, the consultant has not tendered ``more 
than a recommendation,'' even if his recommendation is made with the 
purpose to persuade employees. Id. That is because ``the maker of a 
statement is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the 
statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate 
it.'' Janus Capital Grp. v. First Derivative Traders 564 U.S. 135, 142 
(2011).
    Janus is instructive. There, plaintiffs claimed that a mutual 
fund's allegedly misleading prospectuses were prepared by the fund's 
investment advisor, and sought to hold the investment advisor liable 
under SEC Rule 10b-5 for ``mak[ing] an[] untrue statement of a material 
fact in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.'' Id. at 
137 (first alteration in original; internal quotation marks omitted). 
The Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs' claims, holding that, as the 
alleged misstatements had been issued solely on the authority and under 
the name of the mutual fund, the advisor could not be held liable even 
if it had prepared the prospectuses that the mutual fund ultimately 
adopted. Id. at 142-47. The Court explained that the mutual fund, 
rather than the investment advisor, exercised ``ultimate authority'' 
over whether to adopt any communication prepared by the advisor; the 
advisor, ``[w]ithout control, . . . can merely suggest what to say, not 
`make' a statement in its own right.'' Id. at 142.
    The same rationale applies here: A consultant's draft of, or 
revisions to, speeches or other communications, constitute 
recommendations about how the employer should communicate with its 
employees. As long as the ``ultimate authority'' to decide whether to 
make such communications rests with the employer, such recommendations 
by a consultant are merely ``advice'' within the meaning of Section 
203(c).
    The Persuader Rule rejected this interpretation based in 
significant part on the desire to give more effect to Section 203(c)'s 
reporting requirement for agreements to undertake activities ``where an 
object thereof, directly or

[[Page 33830]]

indirectly, is to persuade employees'' with respect to their collective 
bargaining rights. 29 U.S.C. 433(a)(4) (emphasis added); see also id. 
Sec.  433(b) (likewise covering ``indirect'' persuasion). The Persuader 
Rule reasoned that, unless the drafting of speeches and communications 
were deemed ``indirect'' persuasion (in assistance of the employer's 
``direct'' dissemination of the statements to its employees), the term 
``indirect'' would have little independent meaning. See 57 FR at 15926, 
15933, 15936-37, 15949 fn 39. The Department is now convinced, after a 
review of the statute's text, the intervening court decisions, and the 
submitted comments, that this reading of Section 203(c) is improper.
    First, the Department's prior longstanding interpretation comports 
with the general principle ``that Congress, when drafting a statute, 
gives each provision independent meaning,'' Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 
1619, 1628 (2016) That presumption tells against the Persuader Rule. 
The Persuader Rule interpreted section 203(c) as having no independent 
meaning, merely ``making explicit what sections 203(a) and (b) make 
implicit: That consultant activity undertaken without an object to 
persuade employees, such as advisory and representative services for 
the employer, do not trigger reporting.'' 81 FR at 15951; see also id. 
at 15952 (advice exemption is simply a ``rule of construction'' that 
``underscore[s] that advice qua advice . . . does not trigger a 
reporting obligation simply because it arguably concerns a potential 
employer action that has an object to persuade''). In other words, the 
Persuader Rule read Section 203(c) merely to clarify what already lies 
outside the scope of Sections 203(a) and (b)--depriving Section 203(c) 
of independent meaning. Both federal courts to have reviewed the 
Persuader Rule rejected this interpretation, and the D.C. Circuit long 
ago accepted the Department's view that ``[t]he very purpose of section 
203's exemption prescription . . . is to remove from the section's 
coverage certain activity that otherwise would have been reportable.'' 
UAW v. Dole, 869 F.2d 616, 618 (DC Cir. 1989) (R. Ginsburg, J.). The 
reading that the Department reinstates today, by contrast, gives robust 
and independent meaning to Section 203(c).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Eighth Circuit, which canvassed the legislative history 
of section 203 in a case involving a different question, reached a 
conclusion that supports the Department's longstanding reading of 
section 203(c). That case involved the question whether a consultant 
who engages in reportable persuasion on behalf of one client must 
include in its LM-21 report information about advice given to other 
clients for whom it performed no persuader activity. Although the 
Department does not here opine on this issue, the Department notes 
that the Eighth Circuit exhaustively examined Section 203's 
legislative history and rejected the view that Section 203(c) merely 
clarifies the meaning of Sections 203(a) and (b), concluding that 
the view of the advice exception as ``broader than a mere proviso'' 
more closely reflects congressional intent. Donovan v. Rose Law 
Firm, 768 F.2d 964, 974 (8th Cir. 1985). The Eighth Circuit also 
persuasively explained how previous courts of appeals that reached 
the opposite conclusion on this question misread the intent of 
Section 203(c). See, e.g., Humphreys, Hutcheson and Mosely v. 
Donovan, 755 F.2d 1211 (6th Cir. 1985); Price v. Wirtz, 412 F.2d 647 
(5th Cir. 1969) (en banc). These cases have limited relevance with 
regard to the question presented by the Persuader Rule and this 
proceeding. As the D.C. Circuit explained in UAW, the question 
considered in these cases differed from ``the threshold question 
presented by this [rulemaking]: what is the appropriate 
characterization of activity that can be viewed as both advice and 
persuasion?'' UAW, 869 F.2d at 618 n.3. Nevertheless, the Eighth 
Circuit's well-reasoned conclusion that Section 203(c) does not 
serve merely to make explicit the implicit contours of Sections 
203(a) and (b) is consistent with the Department's longstanding 
interpretation that it reinstates today and is at least somewhat 
inconsistent with the Persuader Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Persuader Rule is not needed to save the words ``or 
indirectly'' from redundancy, and the Department's longstanding 
interpretation did not render the words ``or indirectly'' redundant. 
These words bear independent meaning, under the Department's previous 
interpretation, if construed to cover cases in which a consultant 
communicates with employees through a third party, such as an agent or 
independent contractor. Thus, for instance, reporting requirements 
would attach when a consultant hires a spokesman to spread its message 
to employees or to pass out to employees advocacy materials the 
consultant had prepared. In such cases, the consultant--rather than the 
employer--retains final authority over the message to be delivered to 
employees, thus depriving the consultant of the advice exemption. The 
words ``or indirectly'' ensure that reporting requirements attach to 
such conduct, which has long been the Department's position. At least 
as far back as 1989, the Department's Interpretative Manual asserted 
that a consultant who employs an agent to contact employees falls 
within Section 203's reporting requirement. Interpretative Manual 
section 265.005 (Scope of the Advice Exemption) (``Moreover, the fact 
that such material may be delivered or disseminated through an agent 
would not alter the result.'').\10\ Even if the Department's 
longstanding interpretation rendered the words ``or indirectly'' 
redundant, the redundancy to which the Persuader Rule reduced Section 
203(c) means that one of the Persuader Rule's principal rationales--the 
asserted need to avoid rendering the words ``or indirectly'' 
redundant--cannot stand. When either of two interpretations would 
create redundancy, the canon against redundancy cannot constitute a 
basis for choosing between the interpretations, because neither 
interpretation avoids redundancy. If anything, rendering the words ``or 
indirectly'' redundant is preferable to rendering the entirety of 
Section 203(c) redundant, as the Persuader Rule did.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Persuader Rule rejected the view that the term 
``indirectly'' could be given meaning by attributing to it coverage 
of a consultant's retention of a third party to interact with 
employees, because, according to the Persuader Rule, such indirect 
persuasion by a consultant would be covered even absent the words 
``or indirectly.'' 57 FR at 15949, fn. 39. Absent any definitive 
authority on how the statute would be interpreted in the absence of 
those words, the Department finds persuasive the suggestion that 
Congress included the words `or indirectly' to make clear something 
that might well not be implicit in the statute otherwise: That a 
consultant's use of a third party to contact employees triggers 
reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All that has been said above with respect to communications 
prepared by a consultant for final acceptance or rejection by the 
employer also applies to conduct and policies that a consultant advises 
an employer to implement, an activity that triggered reporting 
requirements under the Persuader Rule. Planning meetings with employees 
and developing personnel policies, like drafting a speech, consist of 
making recommendations that the employer is free to accept or reject. 
Planning such conduct or policies fits within the traditional meaning 
of ``advice.'' See Labnet, 197 F. Supp. 3d at 1169.
    While the Department's own reading of the plain statutory text 
plays the principal role in supporting the interpretation of Section 
203(c) taken here, the Department also notes that the only federal 
courts to have pronounced on the Persuader Rule found that it violates 
the text of the LMRDA or likely does so. One federal district court 
permanently enjoined the Persuader Rule after finding that it 
impermissibly required reporting based on advice within the meaning of 
Section 203(c) and indeed read Section 203(c) out of the statute. NFIB, 
2016 WL 3766121, at *28; see also NFIB, 2016 WL 8193279 (converting 
preliminary injunction to permanent injunction). The other district 
court to consider the Persuader Rule similarly held that it 
``categorizes conduct that clearly constitutes advice as reportable 
persuader activity'' and concluded that the plaintiffs in that case 
``have a strong likelihood of success on their claim that the 
[Persuader Rule] conflicts with the plain language of the

[[Page 33831]]

statute.'' Labnet, 197 F. Supp. 3d at 1170.
    A number of commenters agreed that the Persuader Rule incorrectly 
read Section 203(c). For instance, the Retail Industry Leaders 
Association [p. 5], Council on Labor Law Equality [pp. 20-21], and 
Coalition for a Democratic Workforce [pp. 7-8], as well as several 
others, contended that Congress intended to give the term ``advice'' 
broad scope and the Persuader Rule's interpretation of Section 203(c) 
effectively eviscerated that advice exemption. The American Bar 
Association [p. 4] stated that the proposed interpretation of 
``advice'' in the Persuader Rule would thwart the will of Congress.
    Other commenters opposed rescission, but failed to grapple with the 
fundamental statutory problem with the Persuader Rule. For example, one 
commenter [LMSO-2017-0001-0543; AFL-CIO page 9-10] urged the Department 
to retain the Persuader Rule because it ``has multiple valid 
applications,'' citing Labnet, Inc., 197 F. Supp. 3d at 1168. But 
rejection of the Department's longstanding accept-or-reject test stands 
at the heart of the Persuader Rule's legal analysis, see 81 FR at 
15941, and that rejection is based on a fundamentally flawed 
interpretation of section 203. The Department accordingly is not 
rescinding the Persuader Rule because it has some invalid applications. 
The Department is rescinding the Persuader Rule because the Rule as a 
whole rested on an improper reading of Section 203(c).
    Two Members of Congress serving on the House of Representatives' 
Committee on Education and the Workforce opined that ``a single 
district court decision should not be enough to justify rescinding a 
rule. [LMSO-2017-0001-1097; Ranking Members Scott and Sablan Comment 
Letter page 3.] \11\ But the Department is not rescinding the Persuader 
Rule simply because a district court enjoined it. It is rescinding the 
Persuader Rule because the Department has concluded, after considering 
the arguments made by those challenging the Rule in litigation, the 
opinions of the two district courts to have pronounced on the Persuader 
Rule's merits, the comments that have been submitted, and the plain 
meaning of the statutory text, that the Persuader Rule read Section 
203(c) improperly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A think tank [LMSO-2017-0001-0800; Economic Policy 
Institute p.5) raised a similar issue, asserting that the related 
litigation does not compel rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters opposed rescission on the ground that the 
Persuader Rule is needed to address underreporting. [AFL-CIO, page 10; 
Economic Policy Institute, page 4; Communications Workers of America, 
page 2; North America's Building Trades Union, page 5; National Nurses 
United, page 2; Screen Actors Guild, page 2; and United Food and 
Commercial Workers, page 2] They noted that the Department cited 
underreporting under its prior interpretation--that a consultant incurs 
a reporting obligation only when it directly communicates with 
employees with an object to persuade them--as part of the rationale for 
promulgating the Persuader Rule. 81 FR 15933 (Mar. 24, 2016) (``Indeed, 
the prior interpretation did not properly take into account the 
widespread use of indirect tactics . . . and thus did not result in the 
reporting of most persuader agreements.''). But activities such as 
drafting speeches, proposing policies, and other recommendations that a 
business can accept or reject fall within the plain meaning of the 
``advice'' that Congress exempted from its reporting requirements. 
Failure to report these activities accordingly is not ``evasion'' of 
the LMRDA; rather, such activities fall within the unambiguous scope of 
the term ``advice'' that Congress expressly excepted from triggering 
Section 203's reporting requirements, and thus declining to report 
based on such activities constitutes compliance with the LMRDA.
    Even if a court were to disagree with the Department's view that 
its interpretation of the statute, as laid out in this rulemaking, is 
mandated by the statute, the Department's reasonable reading of the 
statute should still be given deference under Chevron. Chevron, USA, 
Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). And, as 
discussed in more detail in the next sections, several policy 
considerations support rescission of the Persuader Rule and the 
Department's prior longstanding interpretation of the statute. Even if 
the interpretation adopted herein were only one permissible 
interpretation of Section 203(c), the Department would nevertheless 
adopt it based on these compelling policy considerations.

B. The Persuader Rule Impinged on the Attorney-Client Relationship

    A second, independent, reason supports rescission: The Persuader 
Rule would have interfered with longstanding protections of the 
attorney-client relationship.
    The duty to safeguard client confidences has long formed the 
bedrock of the attorney-client relationship. One hundred years ago, the 
American Bar Association's first set of model ethics rules accepted as 
already established ``[t]he obligation . . . not to divulge [a 
client's] secrets or confidences.'' Code of Professional Ethics No. 6 
(1908). Today, the ABA's Model Rules instruct that, absent specific 
exceptions, a ``lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the 
representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent . . 
. .'' Model Rule 1.6.
    The duty not to disclose confidences plays a vital role in 
encouraging businesses and individuals alike to seek counsel. Potential 
clients who fear their decision to retain counsel, or facts about the 
representation, will become public may hesitate before consulting a 
lawyer. Such hesitation would run counter to society's interest in 
fostering legal compliance, as more citizens and businesses would be 
forced to act based on an uninformed interpretation of the law. Perhaps 
even more importantly, the disincentive built into the Persuader Rule 
in consulting an attorney is particularly troubling given that the Rule 
is vague regarding the activities that would be newly reportable. 
Pressuring Americans to act in ignorance of the law imperils a 
``fundamental principle in our legal system[, which] is that laws . . . 
must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.'' FCC 
v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012). For better or 
worse, such fair notice as a practical matter often requires consulting 
legal counsel.
    The Department finds generally persuasive the American Bar 
Association's comments submitted in response to this rulemaking. One of 
these comments, on which the court in Texas relied, states that the 
Persuader Rule called for disclosure of important client confidences 
and would undermine the attorney-client relationship:
    [The Persuader Rule] . . . would require lawyers (and their 
employer clients) to disclose a substantial amount of confidential 
client information, including the existence of the client-lawyer 
relationship and the identity of the client, the general nature of the 
legal representation, and a description of the legal tasks performed.
    By requiring lawyers to file [such reports], the Proposed Rule 
could chill and seriously undermine the confidential client-lawyer 
relationship. In addition, by imposing these unfair reporting burdens 
on both the lawyers

[[Page 33832]]

and the employer clients they represent, the Proposed Rule could very 
well discourage many employers from seeking the expert legal 
representation that they need, thereby effectively denying them their 
fundamental right to counsel.
    NFIB, 2016 WL 3766121, at *7-9. LMSO-2017-0001-0111, American Bar 
Assn., page 7.] Even a comment from several law professors in support 
of retaining the Persuader Rule did not dispute that the Rule required 
disclosure of information that would, absent the Rule, be shielded by 
rules of confidentiality. [LMSO-2017-0001-088127; 27 Law Professors 
page 5-7].
    These concerns are not hypothetical; as the court in Texas found 
based on witness testimony, ``law firms around the country have already 
started announcing their decisions to cease providing advice and 
representations that would trigger reporting under DOL's New Rule,'' 
which ``decrease[s] employers' access to advice from an attorney of 
one's choice.'' Id. at *10. The court further noted the Persuader 
Rule's likely negative effect on organizations' ability to offer 
unionization-related training and seminars to employers (including 
small businesses) because would-be trainers and attendees ``will not 
want their attendance reported and made publicly available.'' Id. at 
*11. After analyzing these and other considerations, the court 
ultimately held that the Persuader Rule was likely ``arbitrary, 
capricious, and an abuse of discretion'' in part because ``the rule 
unreasonably conflicts with state rules governing the practice of 
law.'' Id. at *29. Several commenters shared similar concerns that the 
Texas court noted. [Chairwoman Foxx and Walberg, p. 8; Associated 
General Contractors of America, p. 8; Retail Industry Leaders 
Association, p. 3; Independent Electrical Contractors, p. 6; Seyfarth 
Shaw, p. 4; National Association of Homebuilders, p. 5; Coalition for a 
Democratic Workforce, p. 13; Employment Law Alliance, p. 7].
    The Persuader Rule acknowledged the potential impact on attorney-
client confidences, but simply concluded that the interpretation of the 
LMRDA advanced in the Rule, ``as federal law, must prevail over any 
conflicting . . . rules governing legal ethics'' and that Model Rule 
1.6 and state laws modeled on it permit disclosure when required by 
law. 81 FR at 15998 (Mar. 24, 2016). Those arguments are beside the 
point. The Department agrees that federal law preempts state law and 
does not dispute that many state ethics laws permit disclosures 
required by law. But the state laws at issue enshrine, and bear witness 
to the importance of, certain principles of confidentiality--principles 
that the Persuader Rule, by requiring disclosure of client confidences, 
endangers irrespective of whether attorneys could be administratively 
disciplined for making such disclosures.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For these reasons, the Department was not persuaded by a 
comment that advocated retaining the Persuader Rule on the grounds 
that the Rule's disclosure requirements by their own force exempted 
lawyers from confidentiality obligations that would otherwise apply. 
[LMSO-2017-0001-088127; 27 Law Professors page 5-6].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is not the first time the Department has recognized the need 
for confidentiality to protect the attorney-client relationship in the 
organizing context. The largest labor unions (those with annual 
receipts of $250,000 or more) must under certain circumstances disclose 
and itemize disbursements to lawyers, but that rule does not apply when 
disclosure would expose the union's prospective organizing strategy or 
provide a tactical advantage to a party in contract negotiations. See 
the Instructions for the Form LM-2, p22. The Persuader Rule included no 
similar exemption for employers' consultation with attorneys. 
Rescinding the Persuader Rule continues to recognize the importance of 
confidentiality in the attorney-client relationship, consistent with 
the Instructions for the Form LM-2.
    One comment [LMSO-2017-0001-088127; 27 Law Professors page 2] 
advocated against rescission and noted the difficulty in obtaining 
evidence on how particular activities would affect the behavior of 
lawyers. The comment asserted that rescinding the Persuader Rule would 
preclude obtaining data on its effects and that input from lawyers on 
how they would change their practices could be ``nothing more than 
speculative and self-serving.'' \13\ Because the Department rescinds 
the Persuader Rule on the merits rather than with a view to further 
consideration, this comment's concerns about whether rescission would 
facilitate a future merits consideration is no longer apropos.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This comment also contended that the Persuader Rule did not 
compel disclosure of client confidences. [LMSO-2017-0001-088127; 27 
Law Professors page 4]. The comment asserts that there is ``no 
conflict between the regulatory regime administered by the DOL and 
the ethical responsibilities of lawyers.'' The comment notes that 
section 204 of the LMRDA expressly exempts ``information that was 
lawfully communicated to such attorney by any of his clients,'' 
citing 29 U.S.C. 434. Reporting is required only when the lawyer 
provides services other than legal services, the comment continues. 
The comment identifies several other reporting and disclosure 
requirements imposed on lawyers and concludes that there is ``little 
evidence'' that these regimes have chilled attorneys from serving 
their clients. The Department is not persuaded by these arguments. 
First, it is notable that the comment does not dispute that the 
Persuader Rule did require disclosure of information that, absent 
the Persuader Rule, would be entitled to the protections of 
confidentiality. The portions of the Persuader Rule that did not 
infringe on confidential communications, such as the exemption for 
communications from a client to an attorney under 29 U.S.C. 434, do 
not negate those that do, such as the requirement that guidance 
provided from an attorney to an employer with an intent to persuade 
employees triggers reporting. The assertion of ``little evidence'' 
of chilling in other statutory contexts is bare and unquantified and 
therefore not persuasive and, here, not only did several commenters 
raise this concern, but a U.S. Distric Court found evidence of 
actual chilling. NFIB, 2016 WL 3766121, at \*\10; [Chairwoman Foxx 
and Walberg, p. 8; Associated General Contractors of America, p. 8; 
Retail Industry Leaders Association, p.3; Independent Electrical 
Contractors, p. 6; Seyfarth Shaw, p. 4].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters offered conflicting policy and fact-based arguments 
about the effects of the Persuader Rule on reporting under the LMRDA. 
One think tank [Economic Policy Institute, pages 7-8], for example, 
asserted that the proposed rescission would ``let[] America's working 
people down'' because, in its view, the Persuader Rule constituted 
merely a ``modest step toward leveling the playing field for workers by 
making sure they receive the information they deserve before making a 
decision on forming a union.'' Id. Multiple labor unions made similar 
comments. A representative of the building trades characterized the 
accept-or-reject rule as a ``loophole'' that ``resulted in vast 
underreporting of persuader activities.'' [See LMSO-2017-0001-0797 
North America's Building Trades Unions, p3]; [LMSO-2017-0001-0543 AFL-
CIO, p. 3-4.] An international union stated, `While the Department will 
undoubtedly be inundated with comments from those who assert that the 
2016 Rule was a sop to organized labor, the real beneficiaries of this 
proposal are the employees--the class of individuals for which the 
protections in Section 203 were intended.'' LMSO-2017-0001-1104 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, p3.] [SAG-AFTRA, pg. 2; UFCW, 
pg. 2]
    The Department is not persuaded. First, some Form LM-20 information 
would have been stale. As the commenters noted, the 30 day filing 
deadline for a Form LM-20 is not much shorter than the 38-day median 
timeframe between the filing of an NLRB petition and the ensuing 
election, and 90% of the elections are held within 56 days. See 79 FR 
74307. Although the Persuader Rule estimated that employers engage 
consultants at the first signs of union organizing, indicating the 
persuader agreement

[[Page 33833]]

would precede the petition, such promptness is very unlikely to be 
present in all cases; in cases where it is not, the Form LM-20 may not 
be filed early enough to be useful.
    Second, it is vital to distinguish between information that helps 
employees make an informed decision about their right to form a union, 
on the one hand, and information that is significantly less useful, on 
the other. Information as to whether a person with whom an employee 
comes into contact is actually working for the employee's employer can 
help an employee evaluate whether to trust the arguments that that 
person may advance on the question of unionization. The additional 
disclosures that the Persuader Rule would have required, by contrast, 
are likely to be much less helpful. That is because, for any message or 
conduct that the Persuader Rule newly deemed to be indirect persuasion, 
employees already know that the employer stands behind that message or 
conduct, because the employer conveys the message or undertakes the 
conduct at issue. Knowing which advisor, if any, recommended a 
particular message or conduct is less likely to help employees make an 
informed decision than knowing that a seemingly-independent third-party 
is actually in the pay of his or her employer. It is the Department's 
conclusion that the serious concerns regarding attorney-client 
confidentiality discussed in this section outweigh any assistance the 
former knowledge might render.
    Third, the relative paucity of LM-20 reports under the Department's 
longstanding interpretation of the advice exemption does not 
necessarily indicate under-reporting. Some commenters [Council on Labor 
Law Equality, p. 9; Independent Electrical Contractors, p. 7; Retail 
Industry Leaders Association, p. 7] argued that there is no indication 
that employers or consultants have engaged in misconduct or otherwise 
circumvented or evaded the LMRDA's reporting requirements under the 
Department's longstanding prior interpretation. The Department agrees: 
When comparatively few reports are filed, this can be an indication of 
non-compliance with the reporting rule or it can be an indication of 
relatively little reportable activity. The latter indicates compliance, 
not evasion, and, absent further information indicating that the filing 
of comparatively few reports instead indicates evasion, it provided no 
basis for the Persuader Rule and its mandatory reporting of activities 
such as recommending communications or courses of conduct for an 
employer to accept or reject.

C. The Costs of Additional Use of Form LM-21 Further Support Rescission

    A third reason for rescission involves the additional regulatory 
burdens involving Forms LM-20 and LM-21 imposed by the Rule. The 
obligation to file the Form LM-20 and the Form LM-21 result from the 
same event: Persuader activity. Under section 203(b), every person who 
enters into an agreement or arrangement to undertake persuader 
activities must file a report with the Secretary that includes a 
detailed statement of the terms and conditions of such arrangement 
within 30 days of entering into the agreement, currently accomplished 
by filing a Form LM-20. The person must then also file annually a 
report containing a statement of the person's ``receipts of any kind 
from employers on account of labor relations advice or services, 
designating the sources thereof,'' and a statement of its disbursements 
of any kind, in connection with those services and their purposes, 
currently accomplished by filing a Form LM-21. See also 29 CFR 406.3 
(Form LM-21 requirements). 57 FR 15929. Thus, by statute, the filing of 
a Form LM-20 necessitates the filing of a Form LM-21, so long as any 
disbursement is made pursuant to the reportable persuader agreement or 
arrangement.
    An increase in the range and number of activities that constitute 
``persuader activity'' would increase the number of Form LM-20 and Form 
LM-21 filers. Each form imposes a unique recordkeeping and reporting 
burden on the filer. For example, a consultant/law firm that contracted 
with an employer and engaged in persuader activity under the Rule would 
have to file a Form LM-20 disclosing the arrangement with the employer. 
According to the instructions, the consultant would also have to file a 
Form LM-21 on which it reports the full name and address of employers 
from whom receipts were received directly or indirectly on account of 
labor relations advice or services, as well as the total amount of 
receipts. In addition, the consultant's disbursements to officers and 
employees would be disclosed when made in connection with such labor 
relations advice or services. And the consultant would report in the 
aggregate the total amount of the disbursements attributable to this 
labor relations services and advice, with a breakdown by office and 
administrative expenses, publicity, fees for professional service, 
loans, and other disbursement categories. Finally, the consultant would 
be required to itemize its persuader-related disbursements, the 
recipient of the disbursements, and the purpose of the 
disbursements.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Department does not opine here on whether the statute 
requires consultants who have entered into persuader agreements or 
arrangements to list on the Form LM-21 non-persuader clients, i.e., 
employers with whom they did not into persuader agreements or 
arrangements. See Donovan v. Rose Law Firm, 768 F.2d 964, 974 (8th 
Cir. 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department recognized in the final rule that the Persuader Rule 
would make some labor relations consultants and employers who had 
previously not been required to file at all under the LMRDA responsible 
for filing both forms LM-20 and LM-21, but did not fully consider that 
burden. Instead, it considered only the burden arising from the Form 
LM-20 and deferred consideration of the burden arising from Form LM-21 
to a separate rulemaking. It did so, in part, because it intended to 
engage in parallel rulemaking for reform of the scope and detail of the 
Form LM-21. 57 FR 15992, fn 88. In the meantime, the Department issued 
a separate special enforcement policy that addressed the potential that 
new filers might have unique difficulties in filing the Form LM-21. 
Under that special enforcement policy, the filers of Form LM-20 who 
were also required to file a Form LM-21 were not required to complete 
two parts of that form. See https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/ecr/lm21_specialenforce.htm.
    The Department has now considered the burdens that the Persuader 
Rule would have imposed on the expanded Form LM-21 filers and concluded 
that they would have been substantial. As described below, under the 
Persuader Rule, many more labor relations consultants would have had to 
complete the Form LM-21, and they would have needed to devote 
additional time and resources to do so.
    As discussed in the Economic Analysis below, the Department 
estimates that total number of Form LM-20 filers would have been 2,149. 
Consequently, there would also have been 2,149 Form LM-21 reports 
filed. This is an increase from the previously estimated 358 Form LM-21 
reports. Thus the Persuader Rule would have created more filers of the 
Form LM-21. See https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201604-1245-001.
    These filers would have spent additional time completing the form, 
far more than the 35 minutes previously estimated by the 
Department.\16\ Each filer of Form LM-21 is assumed to have already 
read the Form LM-20 form and

[[Page 33834]]

instructions and therefore knows whether it must file the Form LM-21. 
No additional reading time is therefore necessary to make this 
determination. Nevertheless, the completion of the Form LM-21 would 
have been complicated by the Persuader Rule because the statutory term 
``advice'' was broadened and expanded by the Persuader Rule, with no 
explanation of how the revised definition applied to the Form LM-21. 
This lack of clarity increases the burden of the Form LM-21. Due to 
this increased complexity, completing the form would have thus consumed 
154.5 minutes. This equals a $631,181 Form LM-21 burden arising from 
the Persuader Rule and this burden was not considered by the Department 
when issuing that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201604-1245-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These additional costs of more than $631,000--which the Persuader 
Rule did not properly quantify or consider--are substantial and 
constitute an additional and important policy factor prompting 
rescission of the Persuader Rule to avoid unnecessary burden on the 
private sector.

D. Rescinding the Persuader Rule Will Preserve Limited Departmental 
Resources for Competing Priorities

    A fourth reason for rescission of the Persuader Rule is the 
allocation of scarce resources to different priorities. The Department 
has the ``right to shape [its] enforcement policy to the realities of 
limited resources and competing priorities.'' Int'l Union, United 
Auto., Aerospace & Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. Dole, 869 F.2d 616, 
620 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Under the prior interpretation of the advice 
exemption, there were significantly fewer reports due and accordingly 
fewer investigative resources needed for enforcing the rules on filing 
timely and complete reports. Further, under the prior interpretation, 
case investigations generally involved obtaining and reviewing the 
written agreement and interviewing employees. In contrast, enforcement 
of the Persuader Rule would likely have involved a lengthier and more 
complicated investigation, examining in detail the actions of 
consultants, their interactions with the employers' supervisors and 
other representatives, and the content of attorney communications. The 
investigator would have been required to review both the direct 
reporting category and the four indirect persuader categories. This 
would have been a substantially more resource-intensive process that 
pulled limited resources away from other vital priorities. The 
Department does not believe that this allocation of resources is 
warranted.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ While the Department could avoid some or all of this burden 
by declining to enforce, or enforcing on a limited basis, the 
Persuader Rule, rescinding the Persuader Rule will afford the 
regulated community greater certainty than simply adopting a non-
enforcement policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One comment [LMSO-2017-0001-1097; Ranking Members Scott and Sablan 
Comment Letter page 4] stated that the Department's concern for limited 
resources ``does not account for the discrepancy between unions' broad 
disclosure requirements and employers' meager obligations,'' but that 
comment did not assess the Persuader Rule's burden on the Department. 
The comment asserted that ``the Form LM-2 that unions must file often 
consumes hundreds of pages, whereas employers' LM-10, LM-20 and LM-21 
are four, two and two pages, respectively.'' But the resources filers 
spend completing their reports are not the same as the resources the 
Department spends administering the program. In addition, the length of 
the report does not correlate with the investigatory burden on the 
Department. The greater number of reports and the increased complexity 
of the investigations under the Persuader Rule mean persuader reports 
would have been resource intensive for the Department. In contrast to 
labor unions, which must file an annual report, persuader reports are 
required only when an employer or labor relations consultant actually 
engages in the identified persuader activities in the fiscal year. At 
the end of the fiscal year, the Department cannot know whether a 
particular employer or consultant owes a report, which substantially 
increases the time and expense of monitoring for delinquent employer 
and consultant reports.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A labor union raised concern that the rescission of the 
rule would also rescind the requirement that Form LM-10 and Form LM-
20 be filed electronically. (LMSO-2017-0001-0110; American 
Federation of Teachers pp 2-3). ``While, perhaps, reasonable minds 
may differ on the application of the advice exemption, one is hard 
pressed to think of a fair reason why persuaders should not have to 
file timely, intelligible forms via electronic means--just as unions 
have had to do for over a decade.'' The comment stated that paper 
filing is more costly for the Department and results in delays in 
public disclosure. The commenter states, ``full repeal of the 
original Rule does workers, the public, and researchers a real 
disservice,'' and concludes that the Department should retain 
mandatory electronic filing of LM-10, LM-20, and LM-21 reports. 
Although outside the scope of the regulatory action, the Department 
will consider this request, as it moves to making all forms 
available for electronic filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, the Department has determined that its scarce resources 
are better allocated elsewhere than on the enforcement of the Persuader 
Rule. The Department has wide ranging priorities and responsibilities, 
including helping Americans find the jobs they need, closing the skills 
gap, protecting employees from hazardous working conditions, enforcing 
child labor protections, and many other critical initiatives. Among its 
other priorities, the Department promotes union democracy and financial 
integrity in private sector labor unions through standards for union 
officer elections and union trusteeships and safeguards for union 
assets, and it promotes labor union and labor-management transparency 
through reporting and disclosure requirements for labor unions and 
their officials, employers, labor relations consultants, and surety 
companies. Reporting by employers and labor relations consultants who 
make arrangements to persuade employees with regard to their rights to 
organize and bargain collectively is an important piece of this effort 
and DOL's broader mission, but it is just one piece. Rescission of the 
expansion of the advice exemption will not change the Department's 
robust enforcement of these core reporting requirements, which have 
protected the LMRDA's vital objectives for decades.

IV. Effect of Rescission

    The reporting requirements in effect under this rescission are the 
same as they existed before the rescission. The Forms and Instructions, 
available on the Department's website, are those pre-existing the Rule. 
These are the Forms and Instructions currently being used by filers, in 
light of the litigation and court order discussed in section 2(A), 
above. See National Federal of Independent Business v. Perez (N.D. Tex. 
5:16-cv-00066-c), Slip Op. p.89-90; 2016 WL 3766121; 2016 WL 8193279.

V. Analysis Conducted in Accordance With Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563, Improved 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 13771, Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether 
a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive Order and review by OMB. 58 FR 51735. 
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule 
that: (1) Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affects in a material way a

[[Page 33835]]

sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal 
governments or communities (also referred to as economically 
significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially 
alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan 
programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order. Id. OMB has determined that this final rule is a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
    Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs; it is tailored to impose the least burden on society 
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected the 
approach that maximizes net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes 
that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where 
appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss 
qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, 
including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.

A. The Need for Rulemaking

    As explained above in Part II, Section A, today's final rule to 
rescind the Persuader Rule is part of the Department's continuing 
effort to effectuate the reporting requirements of the LMRDA. The LMRDA 
generally reflects the obligation of unions and employers to conduct 
labor-management relations in a manner that protects employees' rights 
to choose whether to be represented by a union for purposes of 
collective bargaining. The LMRDA's reporting provisions promote these 
rights by requiring unions, employers, and labor relations consultants 
to publicly disclose information about certain financial transactions, 
agreements, and arrangements. The Department believes that a fair and 
transparent government regulatory regime must consider and balance the 
interests of labor relations consultants, employers, labor 
organizations, their members, and the public. It should reflect close 
consideration of possible statutory interpretations and both direct and 
indirect burdens flowing from the Rule, particularly in sensitive 
areas, such as the attorney-client relationship. Any change to a labor 
relations consultant or employer's recordkeeping, reporting and 
business practices should be based on a demonstrated and significant 
need for information, along with consideration of the burden associated 
with such reporting and any increased costs associated with the change.
    In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department assumed the 
position that the rescission of the Persuader Rule would result in a 
burden reduction equal to the difference between the rule as it stood 
prior to the Persuader Rule and the Persuader Rule. 82 FR 26881. In 
utilizing this methodology, the Department estimated that the 
rescission of the Persuader Rule would result in annual cost savings of 
$1,198,714.50.
    In response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department 
received a number of comments disagreeing with the Department's cost 
analysis. Specifically, commenters insisted that the Department failed 
to arrive at a realistic calculation of the actual cost of compliance 
and the cost of familiarization. A number of commenters pointed to a 
lack of definitiveness in the Persuader Rule in identifying whether a 
report would be required, who would be responsible for submitting a 
report, and whether sensitive issues would have to be disclosed through 
the information requested in the report. The commenters argued that 
these matters were significant determinations that would inevitably 
result in higher costs.
    Additionally, in an order granting the issuance of a preliminary 
injunction enjoining the Persuader Rule, the U.S. District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas addressed the burden of the Persuader 
Rule and the increased costs associated with its implementation. Though 
the district court did not conduct its own methodology, the court cited 
and relied upon a third-party report to conclude that the Persuader 
Rule ``could cost the U.S. economy between $7.5 billion and $10.6 
billion during the first year of implementation, and between $4.3 
billion and $6.5 billion per year thereafter; the total cost over a 
ten-year period could be approximately $60 billion--and this would not 
include the indirect economic effects of raising the cost of doing 
business in the United States.'' Nat'l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Perez, 
Case No. 5:16-cv-00066-C, 2016 WL 3766121, at *15 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 
2016).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The rulemaking record contains five comments that cite a 
study that supports these figures. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, The High 
Costs of Proposed New Labor-Law Regulations, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, 
Jan. 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Department does not conclude that the Persuader Rule 
would have resulted in the burden identified by the NFIB court, the 
Department is cognizant of the concerns raised by the commenters in 
response to the NPRM and has thoroughly analyzed and examined these 
comments. After a thorough evaluation, the Department agrees that the 
previous figure failed to account for a number of significant 
considerations.
    Concerning burden, the overarching difficulty associated with the 
Persuader Rule was the broadening of persuader reporting to certain 
categories of indirect contact where the employer remained free to 
accept or reject the recommendations of the consultant. That increase 
in scope would have made it more difficult to determine whether a 
report was required and what information the report should contain. In 
particular, the Persuader Rule would have required close consideration 
of sensitive matters such as privilege and confidentiality that might 
have affected how information should be entered onto the forms. And 
filers would have required more time to review the instructions in 
detail because of the difficulty in accurately and comprehensively 
completing such complex forms.\20\ To the extent that the expanded 
reporting requirement would have potentially disclosed sensitive 
information or chilled efforts to seek help, the impact would have been 
greater and even more time would have been allocated to completing the 
forms. For all these reasons, the Department no longer believes it 
would be accurate to measure the reduced burden simply by comparing the 
burden figures in the Persuader Rule to the figures that it has 
replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The NPRM for the Persuader Rule proposed that non-filing 
entities would require an hour to read the instructions and to 
determine that the rule does not apply to them. It also determined 
that no ``initial familiarization'' costs would be estimated. 81 FR 
16003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Economic Analysis

    For the reasons discussed below, and as relevant here, the 
Department rejects the following assumptions as made in the Persuader 
Rule:
     Non-filing employers, human resources firms, and law firms 
would have spent one hour in total reading instructions (10 minutes) 
and determining that the rule does not apply to them or their clients 
(50 minutes) (81 FR 16003);

[[Page 33836]]

     The number of employers that would have filed Form LM-10 
reports would have been 2,777 (81 FR 16004);
     The number of Form LM-10 reports filed would have been 
2,777 (81 FR 16004);
     The total burden hours per Form LM-10 filer would have 
been 147 minutes. (81 FR 16014);
     The number of consultants that would have filed Form LM-20 
reports would have been 358 (81 FR 16004);
     The number of Form LM-20 reports filed would have been 
4,194 (81 FR 16004);
     The total burden hours per Form LM-20 filer would have 
been 98 minutes (81 FR 16012);
     The number of consultants that would have filed Form LM-21 
reports would have been 358 (81 FR 16004);
     The number of Form LM-21 reports filed would have been 358 
(81 FR 16004);
     Issues arising from the reporting requirements of the Form 
LM-21 would not have been appropriate for consideration under the 
Persuader Rule (81 FR 1600);
    As relevant here, the Department accepts the following assumptions 
made in the Persuader Rule:
     Employers, business associations, and consultants (human 
resources firms, law firms, and labor relations consultants) would not 
have borne ``initial familiarization'' costs (81 FR 16003);
     Non-filing entities would have comprised those employers, 
business associations, and consultants (human resources firms, law 
firms, and labor relations consultants) that are not otherwise 
estimated to be filing (81 FR 16003);
     The number of non-filing consultants would have been 
39,298 (81 FR 16016-17);
     The number of non-filing employers would have been 185,060 
(81 FR 16017);
     Attorneys would have filed reports on behalf of 
consultants and employers (81 FR 16003);
     The estimated recordkeeping and reporting costs should be 
based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data of the average hourly 
wage of a lawyer, including benefits (81 FR 16003);
     A lawyer (SOC 23-1011) has a fully-loaded wage of $114 
(median hourly base wage of $56.81 plus fringe benefits and overhead 
costs of 100% of the base wage) \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment 
Statistics, May 2016 National Employment and Wages Estimates. 
(https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received, the Department makes the following 
assumptions:
     Non-filing employers, human resources firms, and law firms 
would have spent 2.75 hours in total reading instructions (45 minutes) 
for the Form LM-10 or the Form LM-20 and determining that the rule does 
not apply to them or their clients (120 minutes);
     The number of employers that would have filed Form LM-10 
reports would have been 13,297;
     The number of Form LM-10 reports filed would have been 
13,297;
     The total burden hours per Form LM-10 would have been 930 
minutes;
     The number of consultants that would have filed Form LM-20 
reports would have been 2,149;
     The number of Form LM-20 reports filed would have been 
14,714;
     The total burden hours per Form LM-20 would have been 900 
minutes;
     The number of consultants that would have filed Form LM-21 
reports would have been 2,149;
     The number of Form LM-21 reports filed would have been 
2,149;
     The total burden hours per Form LM-21 would have been 
154.5 minutes.
    Based on the comments received, and upon review of the litigation, 
the Department concludes that the Persuader Rule underestimated the 
burden with regard to the amount of time necessary for non-filers to 
read the form and instructions, the number of filers of Form LM-10 and 
Form LM-20, and the number of hours necessary to complete these forms. 
It also erred in failing to estimate the increase in the number of Form 
LM-21 filers and the increased burden the Persuader Rule caused through 
the Form LM-21.
The Burden on Non-Filers to Read the Forms
    In the Persuader Rule, non-filing entities (employers and law 
firms/consultants) were estimated to need one hour in total to read the 
instructions (10 minutes) and determine that the rule does not apply to 
them or their clients (50 minutes). 57 FR 16003, 16007. This was not 
accurate. ``A more realistic assessment of the costs of these new forms 
to business would estimate a higher number of hours per firm, since 
businesses will need to spend time each year determining whether they 
are obligated to file.'' [Diana Furtchgott Roth, The High Costs of 
Proposed New Labor-Law Regulations, Manhattan Institute, Jan. 2016, at 
8 n.16]. The U.S. District Court accepted as fact that the Department 
failed to adequately consider potential filers, concluding that ``[t]he 
department should have examined what the cost would be if all 
potentially affected employers and advisers were to file,'' and 
therefore that the Department did not provide ``an honest assessment of 
the potential effect of the proposed rule.'' Nat'l Fed. of Indep., 2016 
WL 3766121, at *15.
    The Department estimates that, under the Persuader Rule, non-filing 
entities would have spent 2.75 hours total reading the instructions of 
the Form LM-10 or the Form LM-20 (45 minutes) to determine that the 
rule does not apply to them or their clients (120 minutes).
    The additional reading time would have been necessary because of 
the vagueness of the Persuader Rule. The Persuader Rule broadened 
persuader reporting to certain categories of indirect contact where the 
employer remained free to accept or reject the recommendations of the 
consultant. That increase in scope would have made it more difficult to 
determine whether a report was required. One commenter reported, for 
example, ``DOL's new Rule creates a regulatory scheme that is so 
confusing and convoluted, with so many illogical exceptions and 
mandates, that neither employers nor their advisors, including labor 
law experts, can understand how to comply with it.'' [Associated 
Builders and Contractors of Arkansas LMSO-2017-0001-1096, p.13]. 
Another commenter noted, ``most of the cost of compliance will come 
from learning about the new rule and preparing the information to be 
recorded on the form.'' [Furchgott-Roth, p7, see fn 16.] Because the 
rule was vague as to the activities that resulted in reporting 
obligations, it would have taken more than an hour for an employer or a 
consultant to read, understand, and apply it to determine whether 
filing was required.
    Besides vagueness, the sensitivity of the information to be 
included on the form would also have increased the amount of time 
required of non-filers. The Persuader Rule would have required close 
consideration of sensitive matters such as privilege and 
confidentiality that might have affected how information should be 
entered onto the forms. And filers would have required more time to 
review the instructions in detail because of the difficulty in 
accurately determining whether a report was owed. To the extent that 
the expanded reporting requirement would have potentially disclosed 
sensitive information or chilled efforts to seek help, the impact would 
have been greater and even more time would have been allocated to the 
determination. The Department now

[[Page 33837]]

concludes that non-filers would have spent 2.75 hours in total reading 
instructions (45 minutes) and determining that the rule does not apply 
to them or their clients (120 minutes).
    The Department has not altered the time spent by non-filing 
employers on reading the Form LM-21 to determine that filing is not 
required. The review time spent on reading the Form LM-20 will provide 
employers with information on the regulatory regime and non-filers of 
Form LM-10 will have no obligation to file the Form LM-21.
The Number of Filers
    The Department erred in its estimate of the number of filers. The 
Department had largely derived its estimates of the number of filers of 
both the LM-20 and LM-10 forms from the total number of representation 
and decertification elections supervised by the NLRB and the NMB. The 
Department assumed that, in 75% of such cases, the employer would 
utilize a consultant who will engage in reportable activity.\22\ [81 FR 
15964-65, 16004]. The Department considered only representation 
elections, but acknowledged that other reports will result from 
``activities related to collective bargaining and other union avoidance 
efforts outside of representation petitions, such as organizing efforts 
that do not result in the filing of a representation petition.'' Id at 
160004. The burden analysis would have benefited from the Department 
estimating a number from this acknowledged additional source of 
reports. Today, the Department estimates that five times the number of 
reports as those coming from election petitions would have resulted 
from non-election cases. As noted by the Department in the Persuader 
Rule, there is no reliable basis for estimating reports in the many 
areas outside of representation petitions. A commenter provided, 
however, ``given the narrow view the Department intends to take with 
respect to the advice exemption and the broad view of reporting 
obligations, it is likely that the vast majority of reportable activity 
will not involve representation or decertification campaigns at all.'' 
[U.S. Chamber of Commerce LMSO-2017-0001-1147]. As 2,104 reports are 
associated with representation elections we assume that there would 
have been another 10,520 (2,104 x 5 = 10,520) associated with non-
election activity, thus making the non-election activity akin to a 
``vast majority.'' See id.; 81 FR 16004. Adding this to the election 
related reports equals a total of 12,624 reports (2,104 + 10,520 = 
12,624). Adding this to the projected number of seminars, which is 
2,090, the total number of reports would have been 14,714.\23\ See 81 
FR 16005. Assuming that there are 5.875 reports per filer, a 
determination made by the Persuader Rule (81 FR 16005),\24\ the total 
number of Form LM-20 filers would have been 2,149 (12,624 \ 5.875 = 
2,148.7).\25\ This is an increase from the 358 filers determined by the 
Persuader Rule and is the result of counting the number of reports 
arising from non-representation/decertification persuader activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Department separately estimated the number of reports 
attributable to seminars. 81 FR 16005.
    \23\ The Persuader Rule explained the basis of the determination 
that 2,090 Form LM-20 reports would report the holding of a seminar. 
81 FR 16004. To estimate the number of reportable seminars the 
Department utilized the reporting data for ``business associations'' 
from the U.S. Census Bureau's North American Industry Classification 
System Codes (NAICS), NAICS 813910, which includes trade 
associations and chambers of commerce. Of the 15,808 total entities 
in this category, the Department assumed that each of the 1,045 
business associations that operate year round and have 20 or more 
employees would sponsor, on average, one union avoidance seminar for 
employers. Additionally, the Department assumed that all of the 
1,045 identified business associations would contract with a law or 
consultant firm to conduct that seminar. Each of these parties would 
file a report, resulting in 2,090 reports.
    \24\ The Persuader Rule explained the relationship between the 
number of filers and the number of reports. The Department used its 
existing data on Form LM-20 reports. It determined that consultants, 
including law firms, file an annual average of approximately 5.875 
reports a year. 81 FR 16004. Having determined the number of 
reports, the Department derived the number of filers.
    \25\ The number of reports of seminars are not counted when 
calculating the number of filers because, as determined in the 
Persuader Rule, the same law firms and consultants that handle 
organizing campaigns will be the ones that present (and report) 
seminars. 81 FR 16005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the number of Form LM-10 filers, the Department 
combines the estimated 12,624 non-seminar persuader agreements between 
employers and law firms or other consultant firms, calculated for the 
Form LM-20, with 672.6 (the annual average number of Form LM-10 reports 
registered from FY 10-14 submitted pursuant to sections 203(a)(1)-(3), 
the non-persuader agreement or arrangement provisions). Seminar 
persuader agreements are not included because employers who attend a 
seminar were not required, under the Persuader Rule, to file a Form LM-
10. This yields a total estimate of approximately 13,297 revised Form 
LM-10 reports (12,624 + 672.6 = 13,296.6) and thus 13,297 form LM-10 
filers.
    Firms that file LM-20 forms are also required by law to file LM-21 
forms. ``Many law firms have never filed an LM-21 form because of the 
previous Interpretation from the Department. Under the New 
Interpretation, such firms would be required to file LM-21 forms with 
the Department.'' [Worklaw Network, LMSO-2017-0001-0253, p10]. As each 
filer of Form LM-20 reporting persuader activity must also file a Form 
LM-21, so long as receipts and disbursements were attributable to the 
persuader agreement or arrangement, the Department estimates that 2,149 
Form LM-21 reports will be filed.
Time Necessary To Complete the Forms
    The Persuader Rule underestimated the time necessary for filers to 
complete the forms. The rule's complexities not only increased the 
amount of time necessary for non-filing entities to read the 
instructions to understand whether to file, it also increased the 
amount of time it would require of filing entities to complete the 
form. As one commenter stated ``the lawyer or consultant must guess as 
to whether the client's object, in whole or in part, directly or 
indirectly, was to persuade or influence employees.'' [Seyfarth Shaw, 
LMSO-2017-0001-1062, p4]. As the table below shows, for Form LM-10, 
maintaining and gathering records and reading the instructions to 
determine applicability of the form and how to complete it was 
estimated by the Persuader Rule to take a total of 50 minutes. Upon 
reflection and review of the comments, it is clear that the time would 
have been much higher: A total of 306 minutes. The increased time was 
necessary because of the difficulty in categorizing activity as advice 
or persuader activity. ``Instructions . . . meant to clarify the rule 
demonstrate the lack of a clear distinction between reportable 
`persuader activity' and exempt `advice' under the new rule.'' House 
Report 114-739 (REPORT together with MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany H.J. 
Res. 87) LMSO-2017-0001-1151]. This lack of clarity increased the 
amount of time it would have taken to complete the Form LM-10 and Form 
LM-20.
    In addition, the difficulty in discerning state of mind would have 
exacerbated the difficulty in completing the forms. The reporting 
obligation of an employer and its consultant would have turned on the 
subjectively perceived determination of each as to whether the policies 
developed were for the purpose of persuading employees with regard to 
unionizing and collective bargaining. As a commenter noted, ``In 
reality, there is no way to make this determination with any degree of 
confidence--particularly where both the employer and the

[[Page 33838]]

lawyer/consultant have to make their own independent determination as 
to whether the work performed is reportable.'' [Proskauer, LMSO-2017-
0001-0851, p10]. Although ``intent to persuade'' is and has always been 
an element in Form LM-20 and Form LM-10 reporting, the structure of the 
Persuader Rule made this difficult determination more frequent. Under 
the accept-or-reject test, issues of intent need not be considered 
absent direct contact between consultant and employee. Without such a 
clear delineation, the determination of intent would have come up 
routinely. This analysis is complicated where here, by definition, 
there are multiple parties involved, each with its own views and its 
own purpose in making the arrangement or agreement. As a result, in the 
Form LM-20 and LM-10 tables below, the Department increased the time 
estimated for the categories of questions that require analysis of the 
terms, objects and activities of the arrangement or agreement.
The Form LM-21
    The burden of the Form LM-21 would also have been increased by the 
Persuader Rule. The Department recognizes that many difficult questions 
with regard to identifying persuader activity and how to fill out the 
form would have been undertaken for the Form LM-20 and resolved by the 
time the Form LM-21 must be completed. Nevertheless, the completion of 
the Form LM-21 would have been complicated by the Persuader Rule. The 
instructions required consultants to make efforts to allocate between 
``receipts in connection with labor relations advice or services'' 
(which are subject to a reporting obligation) and other receipts for 
employers other than persuader clients. The same is true for 
disbursements. See Form LM-21, sections B and C. \26\ Nevertheless, the 
term ``advice'' was narrowed by the Persuader Rule, with no explanation 
of how the revised definition applied to the Form LM-21. Under the Form 
LM-21, receipts and disbursement in connection with ``labor relations 
advice and services,'' must be reported. Under the reporting structure, 
labor relations advice is distinct from persuader activity but under 
the Persuader Rule there was no category of activity that was 
persuasive but nevertheless exempt (as advice). Further complicating 
the matter, the Department gave no guidance as to whether the revised 
definition of ``advice'' applied, or did not apply, to the Form LM-21. 
This lack of clarity increases the burden of the Form LM-21. Completing 
the form would have consumed 154.5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Form LM-21's Part B (Statement of Receipts) requires 
the filing law firm/consultant to report all receipts from employers 
in connection with labor relations advice or services regardless of 
the purposes of the advice or services. Part C (Statement of 
Disbursements) requires the filer to report all disbursements made 
by the reporting organization in connection with labor relations 
advice or services rendered to the employers listed in Part B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis covers a 10-year period (2018 through 2027) to ensure 
it captures major cost savings that accrue over time. In this analysis, 
we have sought to present cost savings discounted at 7 and 3 percent, 
respectively, following OMB guidelines.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ OMB Circular No. A-4, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' M-03-21 
(Sept. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has undertaken an analysis of the cost savings to 
covered employers, labor relations consultants, and others associated 
with complying with the requirements which are being rescinded by this 
rule. These cost savings are associated with both reporting and 
recordkeeping for Forms LM-10, LM-20, and LM-21.
    The Persuader Rule was enjoined before it became applicable, so if 
the impacts of this final rule are assessed relative to current 
practice, the result would be that there is no impact. If, on the other 
hand, the Rule's effects are assessed relative to a baseline in which 
regulated entities comply with the Rule, the rescission would result in 
annualized cost savings of $92.89 million (with a 3 and 7 percent 
discount rate).
    Under the Rule, employers would have needed to devote additional 
time and resources to the task of determining their responsibilities 
for complying with the rule. The Department used: (1) The number of 
private sector firms with 5 or more employees in addition to the number 
of consulting and lawyer offices; (2) the median hourly wage of a chief 
executive and a lawyer; and (3) the number of hours necessary to comply 
with the Rule. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 
Statistics of U.S. Businesses, in 2015, there were 5,900,731 private 
firms in the United States. Of these businesses, 2,256,994 had five or 
more employees.\28\ There are 6,461 Human Resource Management 
Consultant service firms (NAICS code 511612) and 165,435 Offices of 
Lawyers firms (NAICS code 541110).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 
2015. (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/econ/susb/2015-susb-annual.html).
    \29\ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 
2015. (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/econ/susb/2015-susb-annual.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department determined that 185,060 \30\ of the 2,256,994 
private sector firms with five or more employees would have to review 
the rule and determine whether or not they have any obligation to file 
a Form LM-10 report. For this analysis, we estimated that for each of 
the 185,060 firms, a labor relations specialist (SOC 13-1075) with a 
fully-loaded wage of $60 (median hourly base wage of $29.96 plus fringe 
benefits and overhead costs of 100% of the base wage) would have spent 
2.75 hours determining the firm's obligations relating to Form-10. The 
annualized cost for assessing compliance requirements for these 
potential filers would have been $30.53 million with 3 and 7 percent 
discount rate (185,060 x $60 x 2.75 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Department's methodology for estimating 185,060 is 
explained in the 2016 Final Rule, 81 FR at 16016-16017. In summary, 
the estimate is based on multiplying the ratio of estimated filing 
employers to filing consultants (7.76) by the total number of non-
filing law firms and consultants (23,848), which is composed of the 
number of labor and employment firms (17,387) and human resources 
consultants (6,461). Other methodologies not described in detail 
herein can be referenced in the 2016 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once these employers determined that they needed to file Form LM-
10, they would have also incurred reporting and recordkeeping costs 
associated with filling out the form. The Department estimates lawyers 
(SOC 23-1011) at a fully-loaded wage of $114 (median hourly base wage 
of $56.81 plus fringe benefits and overhead costs of 100% of the base 
wage) \31\ for 13,297 firms would have spent 15.5 hours to complete the 
form. Using the methodology discussed above, the annualized 
recordkeeping cost for those who actually file Form LM-10 would 
therefore have been $23.50 million with 3 and 7 percent discount rate 
(13,297 x $114 x 15.5 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment 
Statistics, May 2016 National Employment and Wages Estimates. 
(https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department estimates that 39,298 of 171,896 consulting and law 
offices would have to review the rule to determine whether or not they 
have any obligation to file a Form LM-20 report. For this analysis, we 
assume that for the 39,298 consulting and law offices, a lawyer with a 
fully-loaded wage of $114 (median hourly base wage of $56.81 plus 
fringe benefits and overhead costs of 100% of the base wage) \32\ would 
have spent 2.75 hours determining their obligations relating to Form-
20. The annualized cost for assessing

[[Page 33839]]

compliance requirements for potential Form LM-20 filers would have been 
$12.32 million with 3 and 7 percent discount rate (39,298 x $114 x 2.75 
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment 
Statistics, May 2016 National Employment and Wages Estimates. 
(https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the consulting and law offices determined that they needed to 
fill out Form LM-20, they would have also incurred reporting and 
recordkeeping costs associated with completing the form. The Department 
assumes labor relations specialists completing 14,714 forms would take 
15 hours to complete the form. Using the methodology discussed above, 
the annual recordkeeping cost for those who actually file form LM-20 
would therefore have been $25.16 million with 3 and 7 percent discount 
rate (14,714 x $114 x 15 hours).
    The Department estimates that 39,298 consulting and law offices 
would have to review the rule to determine whether or not they have any 
obligation to file a Form LM-21 report. For this analysis, we assume 
that, for the 39,298 consulting and law offices, a lawyer (SOC 23-1011) 
with a fully-loaded wage of $114 would have spent ten minutes 
determining the office's obligations relating to Form-21. The 
annualized cost for assessing compliance requirements for potential 
Form LM-21 filers would have been $0.75 million with 3 and 7 percent 
discount rate (39,298 x $114 x 0.167 hours).
    Once the consulting and law offices determined that they needed to 
fill out Form LM-21, they would have also incurred reporting and 
recordkeeping costs associated with completing the form. The Department 
assumes labor relations specialists completing 2,149 forms would take 
2.58 hours to complete the form. Using the methodology discussed above, 
the annual recordkeeping cost for those who actually file Form LM-21 
would therefore have been $0.63 million with 3 and 7 percent discount 
rates (2,149 x $114 x 2.58 hours).
Summary
    The total annualized cost savings associated with this rule can be 
calculated by adding together the savings to potential filers of both 
Form LM-10, Form LM-20, and Form LM-21. There are also savings to 
actual filers of Form LM-10, Form LM-20, and Form LM-21. As shown in 
Table A, the total annualized cost savings are $92.89 million with a 
discount rate of 3 and 7 percent. For a perpetual time horizon, the 
annualized cost savings are the same at $92.89 million with a discount 
rate of 7 percent.

                                           Table A--Total Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Cost savings summary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       10-Year annualization         Perpetual
                                                                 --------------------------------  annualization
                                                                                                 ---------------
                                                                    7% Discount     3% Discount     7% Disount
                                                                       rate            rate            rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form LM-10 Potential Filers (determining whether to file Form-       $30,534,900     $30,534,900     $30,534,900
 10)............................................................
Reporting and Recordkeeping for Form LM-10 reports..............      23,495,799      23,495,799      23,495,799
Form LM-20 Potential Filers (determining whether to file Form-        12,319,923      12,319,923      12,319,923
 20)............................................................
Reporting and Recordkeeping for Form LM-20 reports..............      25,160,940      25,160,940      25,160,940
Form LM-21 Potential Filers (determining whether to file Form-           748,155         748,155         748,155
 21)............................................................
Reporting and Recordkeeping for Form LM-21 reports..............         632,064         631,181         631,181
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Cost Savings..........................................      92,891,781      92,890,898      92,890,898
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Table B--Form LM-10 Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Persuader rule     Recurring
                                                                                     recurring     burden hours
        Burden description: Form LM-10                   Section of form            burden (in     (in minutes)
                                                                                     minutes)         revised
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining and gathering records.............  Recordkeeping Burden............              25             126
Reading the instructions to determine           Reporting Burden................              25             180
 applicability of the form and how to complete
 it.
Reporting LM-10 file number...................  Item 1.a........................             0.5             0.5
Identifying if report filed under a Hardship    Item 1.b........................             0.5             0.5
 Exemption.
Identifying if report is amended..............  Item 1.c........................             0.5             0.5
Fiscal Year Covered...........................  Item 2..........................             0.5             0.5
Reporting employer's contact information......  Item 3..........................               2               2
Reporting president's contact information if    Item 4..........................               2               2
 different than 3.
Identifying Other Address Where Records Are     Item 5..........................               2               2
 Kept.
Identifying where records are kept............  Item 6..........................             0.5               2
Type of Organization..........................  Item 7..........................             0.5             0.5
Reporting union or union official's contact     Item 8..........................               4               4
 information (Part A).
Date of Part A payments.......................  Item 9.a........................             0.5             0.5
Amount of Part A payments.....................  Item 9.b........................             0.5             0.5
Kind of Part A payments.......................  Item 9.c........................             0.5             0.5
Explaining Part A payments....................  Item 9.d........................               5               5
Identifying recipient's name and contact        Item 10.........................               4               4
 information.
Date of Part B payments.......................  Item 11.a.......................             0.5             0.5
Amount of Part B payments.....................  Item 11.b.......................             0.5             0.5
Kind of Part B payments.......................  11.c............................             0.5             0.5
Explaining Part B payments....................  11.d............................               5               5
Part C: Identifying object(s) of the agreement  Part C..........................               1             360
 or arrangement.

[[Page 33840]]

 
Identifying name and contact information for    Item 12.........................               4               4
 individual with whom agreement or arrangement
 was made.
Indicating the date of the agreement or         Item 13.a.......................             0.5             0.5
 arrangement.
Detailing the terms and conditions of           Item 13.b.......................               5              90
 agreement or arrangement.
Identifying specific activities to be           Item 14.a.......................               5            60.5
 performed.
Identifying period during which performed.....  Item 14.b.......................             0.5             0.5
Identifying the extent performed..............  Item 14.c.......................               1               1
Identifying name of person(s) through whom      Item 14.d.......................               2               2
 activities were performed.
Identify the Subject Group of Employee(s).....  Item 14.e.......................               5               5
Identify the Subject Labor Organization(s)....  Item 14.f.......................               1               1
Indicating the date of each payment pursuant    Item 15.a.......................             0.5             0.5
 to agreement or arrangement.
Indicating the amount of each payment.........  Item 15.b.......................             0.5             0.5
Indicating the kind of payment................  Item 15.c.......................             0.5             0.5
Explanation for the circumstances surrounding   Item 15.d.......................               5              30
 the payment(s).
Part D: Identifying purpose of expenditure(s).  Part D..........................               1               1
Part D: Identifying recipient's name and        Item 16.........................               4               4
 contact information.
Date of Part D payments.......................  Item 17.a.......................             0.5             0.5
Amount of Part D payments.....................  Item 17.b.......................             0.5             0.5
Kind of Part D payments.......................  Item 17.c.......................             0.5             0.5
Explaining Part D payments....................  Item 17.d.......................               5               5
Checking Responses............................  N/A.............................               5               5
Signature and verification....................  Items 18-19.....................              20              20
Total Recordkeeping Burden Hour Estimate Per    ................................              25             126
 Form LM-10 Filer.
Total Reporting Burden Hour Estimate Per Form   ................................             122             804
 LM-10 Filer.
Total Burden Estimate Per Form LM-10 Filer....  ................................             147             930
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Table C--Form LM-20 Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Persuader rule     Recurring
                                                                                     recurring     burden hours
        Burden description: Form LM-20               Section of revised form        burden (in     (in minutes)
                                                                                     minutes)         revised
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining and gathering records.............  Recordkeeping Burden............              15             126
Reading the instructions to determine           Reporting Burden................              20             180
 applicability of the form and how to complete
 it.
Reporting LM-20 file number...................  Item 1.a........................             0.5             0.5
Identifying if report filed under a Hardship    Item 1.b........................             0.5             0.5
 Exemption.
Identifying if report is amended..............  Item 1.c........................             0.5             0.5
Reporting filer's contact information.........  Item 2..........................               2               2
Identifying Other Address Where Records Are     Item 3..........................               2               2
 Kept.
Date Fiscal Year Ends.........................  Item 4..........................             0.5             0.5
Type of Person................................  Item 5..........................             0.5             0.5
Full Name and Address of Employer.............  Item 6..........................              10              10
Date of Agreement or Arrangement..............  Item 7..........................             0.5             0.5
Person(s) Through Whom Agreement or             Items 8(a) and (b)..............               2               2
 Arrangement Made.
Object of Activities..........................  Item 9..........................               1             360
Terms and Conditions..........................  Item 10.........................               5             120
Nature of Activities..........................  Item 11.a.......................               5              61
Period During Which Activity Performed........  Item 11.b.......................             0.5             0.5
Extent of Performance.........................  Item 11.c.......................             0.5             0.5
Name and Address of Person Through Whom         Items 11.d......................               2               2
 Performed.
Identify the Subject Group of Employee(s).....  Item 12.a.......................               5               5
Identify the Subject Labor Organization(s)....  Item 12.b.......................               1               1
Checking Responses............................  N/A.............................               5               5
Signature and verification....................  Items 13-14.....................              20              20
Total Recordkeeping Burden Hour Estimate Per    ................................              15             126
 Form LM-20 Filer.
Total Reporting Burden Hour Estimate Per Form   ................................              83             774
 LM-20 Filer.
Total Burden Estimate Per Form LM-20 Filer....  ................................              98             900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33841]]


                             Table D--Form LM-21 Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Persuader rule     Recurring
                                                                                     recurring     burden hours
         Burden Description Form LM-21                   Section of form            burden (in     (in minutes)
                                                                                     minutes)         revised
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining and gathering records.............  Recordkeeping Burden............              10              10
Reading the instructions to determine           Reporting Burden................              10              10
 applicability of the form and how to complete
 it.
Reporting LM-21 file number...................  Item 1..........................             0.5             0.5
Period covered by report......................  Item 2..........................             0.5             0.5
Part A: Reporting filers information..........  Item 3..........................             0.5             0.5
Identifying Other Address where Records Are     Item 4..........................             0.5             0.5
 Kept.
Part B: Identifying Employer Name and Address.  Item 5a.........................             0.5             120
Termination Date..............................  Item 5b.........................             0.5             0.5
Amount of Receipts............................  Item 5c.........................             0.5             0.5
Total of Receipts from All Employers..........  Item 6..........................             0.5             0.5
Part C: Disbursements to Officers and           Item 7..........................  ..............  ..............
 Employees.
Name(s).......................................  Item 7a.........................             0.5             0.5
Salary........................................  Item 7b.........................             0.5             0.5
Expenses......................................  Item 7c.........................             0.5             0.5
Total for Each Officer and Employee...........  Item 7d.........................             0.5             0.5
Total Disbursements to All Officers and         Item 8..........................               1               1
 Employees.
Office and Administrative Expense.............  Item 9..........................             0.5             0.5
Publicity.....................................  Item 10.........................             0.5             0.5
Fees for Professional Services................  Item 11.........................             0.5             0.5
Loans Made....................................  Item 12.........................             0.5             0.5
Other Disbursements...........................  Item 13.........................             0.5             0.5
Total Disbursements for Reporting Period......  Item 14.........................               1               1
Part D: Schedule of Disbursements for           ................................  ..............  ..............
 Reportable Activity.
Name of Employer..............................  Item 15a........................             0.5             0.5
Trade Name (if applicable)....................  Item 15b........................             0.5             0.5
Identify to whom payment was made.............  Item 15c........................             0.5             0.5
Amount of Payment.............................  Item 15d........................             0.5             0.5
Purpose of Payment............................  Item 15e........................             0.5             0.5
Total Disbursements for Reporting Period......  Item 16.........................               1               1
President Signature and Date..................  Item 17.........................             0.5             0.5
Treasurer Signature and Date..................  Item 18.........................             0.5             0.5
Total Burden Estimate Per Form LM-21 Filer....  ................................              35           154.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires federal agencies 
engaged in rulemaking to consider the impact of their proposals on 
small entities, to consider alternatives to minimize that impact, and 
to solicit public comment on their analyses. The RFA requires the 
assessment of the impact of a regulation on a wide range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must determine whether a 
proposed or final rule would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of those small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As 
part of a regulatory proposal, the RFA requires a federal agency to 
prepare, and make available for public comment, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    The Final Rule will result in cost savings to small consultants and 
employers because it contains no new collection of information and 
relieves the additional burden that would have been imposed upon 
employers and labor relations consultants by the regulations published 
on Mar. 24, 2016. From the regulatory impact analysis above, the 
annualized cost savings per employer who filed Form LM-10 are estimated 
at $1,932.\33\ The annualized cost savings per labor relation 
consultant who filed Form LM-20 and Form LM-21 is $2,337.\34\ The cost 
savings to small entities, however, are not significant and below one 
percent of their annual gross revenues. The average annual gross 
revenue for the smallest businesses with 5 to 9 employees ranges from 
$389,846 for Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS code: 11) to $4.91 
million for Wholesale Trade (NAICS code: 53). Therefore, the Department 
certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The annualized cost savings (with a 7 percent discount 
rate) for an employer from relieving the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for Form LM-10 is $1,932 ($60 x 2.75 hours + $114 x 
15.5 hours).
    \34\ The annualized cost savings (with a 7 percent discount 
rate) for a consulting and law office from relieving the reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements for Form LM-20 and Form LM-21 is 
$2,337 ($114 x 17.75 hours + $114 x 2.747 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
provides that no person is required to respond to a collection of 
information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. In order to 
obtain PRA approval, a Federal agency must engage in a number of steps, 
including estimating the burden the collection places on the public and 
seeking public input on the proposed information collection.
    This rule contains no new information collection requirements for 
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.). The Department notes that, consistent with the previously 
mentioned injunction, the agency has already amended the information 
collection approval for Forms LM-10 and LM-20 and their instructions to 
reapply the pre-2016 versions. When

[[Page 33842]]

issuing its approval, the OMB issued clearance terms providing the 
previously approved versions of these forms will remain in effect until 
further notice. See ICR Reference Number 201604-1245-001.
    As the rule still requires an information collection, the 
Department is submitting, contemporaneous with the publication of this 
document, an information collection request (ICR) to revise the PRA 
clearance to address the clearance term. A copy of this ICR, with 
applicable supporting documentation, including among other things a 
description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, 
and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the 
RegInfo.gov website at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201710-1245-001 (this link will only become active 
on the day following publication of this document) or from the 
Department by contacting Andrew Davis on 202-693-0123 (this is not a 
toll-free number) / email: [email protected].
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Agency: Office of Labor-Management Standards.
    Title: Labor Organization and Auxiliary Reports.
    OMB Number: 1245-0003.
    Affected Public: Private Sector--businesses or other for-profits 
and not-for-profit institutions.
    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,488,213.
    Number of Annual Responses: 2,488,528.
    Frequency of Response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,362,032.
    Estimated Total Annual Other Burden Cost: $0.

VIII. Regulatory Impact

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform

    This rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in 
increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, of $100 million or more, or in increased expenditures by the 
private sector of $100 million or more.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule 
will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based companies to 
compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 405 and 406

    Labor management relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Text of Rule

    Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, the Department amends 
parts 405 and 406 of title 29, chapter IV of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 405--EMPLOYER REPORTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 405 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Secs. 203, 207, 208, 73 Stat. 526, 529 (29 U.S.C. 
433, 437, 438); Secretary's Order No. 03-2012, 77 FR 69376, November 
16, 2012.


Sec.  405.5   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  405.5 by removing the phrase ``the instructions for Part 
A of the Form LM-10'' and adding in its place ``the second paragraph 
under the instructions for Question 8A of Form LM-10''.


Sec.  405.7   [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  405.7 by removing the phrase ``Part D of the Form LM-
10'' and adding in its place ``Question 8C of Form LM-10''.

PART 406--REPORTING BY LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTANTS AND OTHER 
PERSONS, CERTAIN AGREEMENTS WITH EMPLOYERS

0
 4. The authority citation for part 406 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 203, 207, 208, 73 Stat. 526, 529 (29 U.S.C. 
433, 437, 438); Secretary's Order No. 03-2012, 77 FR 69376, November 
16, 2012.

0
5. Amend Sec.  406.2(a) by revising the last two sentences of the 
paragraph to read as follows:


Sec.  406.2  Agreement and activities report.

    (a) * * * The report shall be filed within 30 days after entering 
into an agreement or arrangement of the type described in this section. 
If there is any change in the information reported (other than that 
required by Item C. 10, (c) of the Form), it must be filed in a report 
clearly marked ``Amended Report'' within 30 days of the change.
* * * * *

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of July, 2018.
Arthur F. Rosenfeld,
Director, Office of Labor-Management Standards.
[FR Doc. 2018-14948 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P