HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022315.jpg

54044 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (emphasis added). The Board understands the “economic impact of * * * the rule’ to refer to the costs to affected entities of complying with the rule, not to the economic impact of a series of subsequent decisions made by individual actors in the economy that are neither compelled by, nor the inevitable result of, the rule.197 Even if more employees opt for union representation after learning about their rights, employers can avoid the adverse effects on business costs, flexibility, and profitability predicted by Baker & Daniels LLP and other commenters by not agreeing to unions’ demands that might produce those effects.198 The Board finds support for this view in the language of Section 603 of the RFA, which lists the items to be included in an initial regulatory flexibility analysis if one is required. 5 U.S.C. 603. Section 603(a) states only that such analysis ‘‘shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). However, Section 603(b) provides, as relevant here, that “[e]ach initial regulatory flexibility analysis * * * shall contain—* * * “(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record|[.]”’ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4) (emphasis added). The Small Business Administration cites, as examples of “‘other compliance requirements,” (a) Capital costs for equipment needed to meet the regulatory requirements; (b) costs of modifying existing processes and procedures to comply with the proposed rule; (c) lost sales and profits resulting from the proposed rule; (d) changes in market competition as a result of the proposed rule and its impact on small entities or specific submarkets of small entities; (e) extra costs associated with the payment of taxes or fees associated with the proposed rule; and (f) hiring employees dedicated to compliance with regulatory requirements.199 Thus, the “impact” on small entities referred to in Section 603(a) refers only 197 For RFA purposes, the relevant economic impact on small entities is the impact of compliance with the rule. Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cited in SBA Guide, above, at 77. 198 NLRA Section 8(d) expressly states that the obligation to bargain in good faith “does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession[.]” 29 U.S.C. 158(d). 199 SBA Guide, above, at 34. to the rule’s projected compliance costs to small entities (none of which would result from posting a workplace notice), not the kinds of speculative and indirect economic impact that Baker & Daniels LLC invokes,?°° Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC) and Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) contend that the Board’s RFA analysis fails to account for the costs of electronic notice posting, especially for employers that communicate with employees via multiple electronic means. Both comments deplore what they consider to be the rule’s vague requirements in this respect. ABC argues that clear guidance is needed, and that the Board should withdraw the electronic notice posting requirements until more information can be gathered. RILA asserts that “‘[d]eciphering and complying with the Board’s requirements would impose significant legal and administrative costs and inevitably result [in] litigation as parties disagree about when a communication is ‘customarily used,’ and whether and when employees need to be informed through multiple communications.” Numerous comments assert that employers, especially small employers that lack professional human resources staff, will incur significant legal expenses as they attempt to comply with the rule. For example, Fisher and Phillips, a management law firm, urges that the cost of legal fees should be included in assessing the economic impact of the proposed rule: “[I]t might be considered naive to assume that a significant percentage of small employers would not seek the advice of counsel, and it would be equally naive to assume that a significant percentage of those newly-engaged lawyers could be retained for as little as $31.02/hour.” Those comments are not persuasive. The choice to retain counsel is not a requirement for complying with the tule. This is not a complicated or nuanced rule. The employer is only required to post a notice provided by the Board in the same manner in which that employer customarily posts notices to its employees. The Board has explained above what the rule’s electronic posting provisions require of employers in general, and it has simplified those provisions by eliminating the requirement that notices be provided by email and many other forms of electronic communication.?°! It 200 Baker & Daniels LLP cites no authority to support its contention that the RFA is concerned with costs other than the costs of compliance with the rule, and the Board is aware of none. 201 Contrary to ABC’s and RILA’s assertions, the Board did estimate the cost of complying with the should not be necessary for employers, small or large, to add human resources staff, retain counsel, or resort to litigation if they have questions concerning whether the proposed rule applies to them or about the requirements for technical compliance with the rule, including how the electronic posting provisions specifically affect their enterprises.2°? Such questions can be directed to the Board’s regional offices, either by telephone, personal visit, email, or regular mail, and will be answered free of charge by representatives of the Board.293 Cass County Electric Cooperative argues that the Board failed to take into account legal expenses that employers will incur if they fail to ‘follow the letter of the proposed rule.” The comment urges that the Board should estimate the cost to businesses ‘‘should they have to defend themselves against an unfair labor practice for failure to comply with the rule, no matter what the circumstances for that failure might be,” presumably including failures to post the notice by employers that are unaware of the rule and inadvertent failures to comply with technical posting requirements. International Foodservice Distributors Association contends that the Board also should have considered the costs of tolling the statute of limitations when employers fail to post the notice. However, the costs referred to in these comments are costs of not complying with the rule, not compliance costs. As stated above, for RFA purposes, the relevant economic analysis focuses on the costs of complying with the rule.2o rule’s electronic notice posting requirements; its estimated average cost of $62.04 specifically included such costs. 75 FR 80415. Although ABC faults the Board for failing to issue a preliminary request for information (RFI) concerning the ways employers communicate with employees electronically, the Board did ask for comments concerning its RFA certification in the NPRM, id. at 80416. In this regard, ABC states only that “many ABC member companies communicate with employees through email or other electronic means,” which the Board expressly contemplated in the NPRM, id. at 80413, and which is also the Board’s practice with respect to communicating with its own employees. If ABC has more specific information it has failed to provide it. In any event, he final rule will not require email or many other ypes of electronic notice. 202 Association of Corporate Counsel contends hat employers will have to modify their policies and procedures manuals as a result of the rule. The Board questions that contention, but even if some employers do take those steps, they would not be a cost of complying with the rule. 203 Fisher and Phillips also suggest that the Board ailed to take into account the effect that the proposed rule would have on the Board’s own case intake and budget. The RFA, however, does not require an estimate of the economic effects of proposed rules on Federal agencies. 204 See fn. 197, above. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022315