content-documents/house-oversight-nov/12/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316.md

---
title: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316)"
source: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)"
sourceUrl: "https://www.justice.gov/epstein"
date: "2026-01-01"
category: "House Oversight"
eftaNumber: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316"
ocrPages: 1
ocrChars: 8284
ocrElapsed: 0.0
parseTier: "external-legacy"
engine: "engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)"
externalSource: "greg-ep-nov-12"
externalLicense: "not granted"
externalCredit: "ep-nov-12.greg.technology"
externalUrl: "https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology"
---

Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
54045
Some comments assert that the
content of the notice will prompt
employee questions, which managers
and supervisors will have to answer,
and be trained to answer, and that the
Board failed to account for the cost of
such training and discussions in terms
of lost work time.205 Other comments
contend that employers will incur costs
of opposing an increased number of
union organizing campaigns. 206
Relatedly, several comments state that
employers should be allowed to, and/or
will respond to the notice by informing
employees of aspects of unionization
and collective bargaining that are not
covered by the notice; some suggest that
employers may post their own notices
presenting their point of view.207 (A few
comments, by contrast, protest that
employers will be prohibited from
presenting their side of the issues raised
by the posting of notices.) The Board
responds that any costs that employers
may incur in responding to employee
questions, in setting forth the
emplovers' views on unions and
collective bargaining, or in opposing
union organizing efforts will be incurred
entirely at the employers' own volition;
they are not a cost of complying with
As discussed above, many comments
express concerns that union supporters
will tear down the notices in order to
expose employers to 8(a)(1) liability for
failing to post the notices. Some of these
comments also contend that, as a result,
employers will have to spend
considerable time monitoring the
notices to make sure that they are not
torn down, or incur additional costs of
installing tamper-proof bulletin boards.
One commenter predicts that his
emplover will have to spend $20,000 for
such bulletin boards at a single facility.
or a total of $100,000 at all of its
facilities, and even then will have to
spend two hours each month
monitoring the postings. For the reasons
discussed above, the Board is not
convinced at this time that the problem
of posters being torn down is anything
more than speculative, and accordingly
is inclined to discount these predictions
substantially. In any event, the rule
requires only that employers "take
reasonable steps" —not every
conceivable step—to ensure that the
205 See, e.g., comments of Cass County Electric
Cooperative and Baker & McKenzie. The latter
estimates that each private sector employee will
spend at least an hour attending meetings
concerning the content of the notice, and that the
cost to the economy in terms of lost employee work
time will be $3.5 billion.
206 See, e.g., comment of Dr. Pepper Snapple
Group.
207 See, e.g., comments of Metro Toyota and
Capital Associated Industries, Inc.
notice is not defaced or torn down. The
rule does not require, or even suggest,
that employers must spend thousands of
dollars to install tamper-proof bulletin
boards or that employers must
constantly monitor the notice.208
One comment contends that most
small employers do not have 11 × 17-
inch color printers, and therefore will
have to have the posters printed
commercially at a cost that, alone,
assertedly will exceed the Board's
estimate of the cost of the rule. The
Board understands the concerns of this
small emplover. The Board points out
that it will furnish a reasonable number
of copies of the notice free of charge to
any requesting employer. Moreover, as
explained above, employers may
reproduce the notice in black-and-white
and may print the notice on two
standard-sized, 8.5 x 11-inch pages and
tape or bind them together, rather than
having them printed commercially.
A number of comments argue that the
rule will lead to workplace conflict. For
example, the comment of Wiseda
Corporation contains the following:
Unnecessary Confusion and Conflict in the
Workplace. The labor law terms and
industrial union language of the proposed
notice (such as hiring hall and concerted
activity) present an unclear and adversarial
picture to employees. Most non-union
employers like us, who wish to remain non-
union, encourage cooperative problem
solving. In a modern non-union workplace,
to require such a poster encouraging strikes
and restroom leaflets is disrespectful of the
hard work and good intentions of employers,
management, and employees. The proposed
poster would exist alongside other company
notices on problem-solving, respect for
others, resolving harassment issues, etc., and
would clearly be out of character and
inappropriate. (Emphasis in original.)
Another comment puts it more bluntly:
"The notice as proposed is more of an
invitation to cause employee/employer
disputes rather than an explanation of
employee rights." The Board's response
is that the ill effects predicted in these
comments, like the predicted adverse
effects of unionization discussed above,
are not costs of compliance with the
rule, but of employees' learning about
their workplace rights. In addition,
Congress, not the Board, created the
subject rights and did so after finding
that vesting employees with these rights
would reduce industrial strife.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 209
The final rule imposes certain
minimal burdens associated with the
208 Contrary to one comment's suggestion, no
employer will be "bankrupted" by fines imposed if
the notice is torn down. As explained above, the
Board does not have the authority to impose fines.
209 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
posting of the employee notice required
oy § 104.202. As noted in § 104.202(e),
the Board will make the notice
available, and employers will be
permitted to post copies of the notice
that are exact duplicates in content,
size, format, and type size and style.
Under the regulations implementing the
PRA, "Ithe public disclosure of
information originally supplied by the
Federal government to [a] recipient for
the purpose of disclosure to the public"
is not considered a "collection of
information" under the Act. See 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2). Therefore, contrary to
several comments, the posting
requirement is not subiect to the
The Board received no comments
suggesting that the PKA covers the costs
to the Federal government of
administering the regulations
established by the proposed rule.
Therefore, the NPRM's discussion of
this issue stands.
Accordingly, this rule does not
contain information collection
requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
C. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 211
This rule is a "major rule" as defined
by Section 804(2) of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Congressional Review Act),
because it will have an effect on the
economy of more than $100 million, at
least during the year it takes effect. 5
U.S.C. 804(2)(A).212 Accordingly, the
210 The California Chamber of Commerce and the
National Council of Agricultural Employers dispute
this conclusion. They assert that the PRA
distinguishes between the "agencies" to which it
applies and the "Federal government," and
therefore that the exemption provided in 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2) applies only to information supplied bv
"the actual Federal government," not to information
supplied by a Federal agency such as the Board.
The flaw in this argument is that there is no such
legal entity as "the [actual] Federal government."
What is commonly referred to as 'the Federal
government" is a collection of the three branches
of the United States government, including the
departments of the executive branch, and the
various independent agencies, including the Board.
If "the Federal government" can be said to act at
all, it can do so only through one or more of those
entities—in this instance, the Board-and that is
undoubtedly the meaning that the drafters of 5 CFR
212 A rule is a "major rule" for CRA purposes if
it will (A) Have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more: (B) cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, government agencies, or geographic
regions; or (C) result in significant adverse effects
on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
5 U.S.C. 804. The notice-posting rule is a "major
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316