House Committee Requests Extension of NPRM Open Comment Period

Will the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis head the call to extend when the plea comes from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives?

With the OFCCP’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (regarding individuals with disabilities) open comment period scheduled to close on February 7, 2012, special interest groups have requested extensions to the comment period, but to no avail. On January 27th, House members John Kline and Phil Roe are attempting to extend the comment period by 90 days through a letter sent to the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis. Within the letter, they request the OFCCP to furnish additional documentation regarding:

1. Identify and explain OFCCP’s statutory authority under Section 503 to establish an numerical hiring standard.


2. Identify and explain the basis for OFCCP’s decision that federal contractor good faith efforts are insufficient affirmative action under Section 503.


3. Identify and explain OFCCP’s statutory authority to require contractors to ask job applicants to self-identify as a qualified individual with a disability, given that the ADA prohibits disability-related questions before an offer of employment has been made.


4. Identify and explain the basis for OFCCP’s assumption that job applicants and contractors’ current employees would understand the legal definition of “disability”, as defined in the NPRM’s prescribed self-identification notice.


5. Explain how the OFCCP arrived at the assumption that contractors would only spend 30 minutes per year to explain their reasoning and circumstances for rejecting individuals with disabilities for vacancies and training programs.


6. Under proposed section 60-741.44(d), OFCCP failed to consider the costs federal contractors would incur to make their “electronic or online job application systems compatible with assistive technology commonly used by individuals with disabilities, such as screen reading and speech recognition software. Likewise, under proposed section 60-741.44(g), OFCCP failed to consider the economic burdens associated with discussing the NPRM’s new affirmative action requirements with all employees during, for example, orientation and training events. Explain why OFCCP failed to consider the costs of contractors’ compliance with these provisions or proposed sections 60-741.44(d)and (g).

Letter to Secretary Solis:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/2012-01-27_-_Letter_to_Sec_Solis_re_OFCCP.pdf

Within the months ahead, a contractor’s responsibilities associated with additional data collection/retention will likely increase. However, wholesale changes to HRIS and reporting systems today would not be the prudent approach. BCG recommends discussing the issues internally now, and preparing your budgets for the pending changes in requirements, but to hold-tight on making any wholesale changes until the proposed rule is finalized.