Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

2966

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR OTHER DOL PROGRAMSContinued Violations occurring
Penalty assessed
After November 2, 2015

After January 15, 2021

III. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
44 U.S.C. 3507d requires that the Department consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The Department has determined that this final rule does not require any collection of information.
IV. Administrative Procedure Act The Inflation Adjustment Act provides that agencies shall annually adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation notwithstanding section 553 of the APA. Additionally, the Inflation Adjustment Act provides a nondiscretionary cost-of-living formula for annual adjustment of the civil monetary penalties. For these reasons, the requirements in sections 553b, c, and d of the APA, relating to notice and comment and requiring that a rule be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, are inapplicable.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Executive Order 12866 requires that regulatory agencies assess both the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions. Under the Executive Order, a significant regulatory action is one meeting any of a number of specified conditions, including the following:
Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency; materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients; or raising novel legal or policy issues.
The Department has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action and a cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. This regulation merely adjusts civil monetary penalties in accordance with inflation as required by the Inflation Adjustment Act, and has no impact on disclosure or compliance costs. The benefit provided by the inflationary adjustment to the maximum civil monetary penalties is that of maintaining the incentive for the regulated community to comply with the laws enforced by the Department, and not allowing the incentive to be diminished by inflation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Jan 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility to minimize burden.
The Inflation Adjustment Act directed the Department to issue the annual adjustments without regard to section 553 of the APA. In that context, Congress has already determined that any possible increase in costs is justified by the overall benefits of such adjustments. This final rule makes only the statutory changes outlined herein;
thus there are no alternatives or further analysis required by Executive Order 13563.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. RFA, imposes certain requirements on Federal agency rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of the APA, 5
U.S.C. 553b. This final rule is exempt from the requirements of the APA
because the Inflation Adjustment Act directed the Department to issue the annual adjustments without regard to section 553 of the APA. Therefore, the requirements of the RFA applicable to notices of proposed rulemaking, 5
U.S.C. 603, do not apply to this rule.
Accordingly, the Department is not required to either certify that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 15311538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a state, local, or tribal government, in the
PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Which penalty level applies January 15, 2021 levels.

aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 adjusted for inflation or more in any one year. This Final Rule will not result in such an expenditure.
Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 OSH Act 29
U.S.C. 667 requires Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA-approved State Plans to have standards and an enforcement program that are at least as effective as Federal OSHAs standards and enforcement program. OSHA-approved State Plans must have maximum and minimum penalty levels that are at least as effective as Federal OSHAs, per section 18c2 of the OSH Act. See also 29 CFR
1902.4c2xi; 1902.37b12. State Plans are required to increase their penalties in alignment with OSHAs penalty increases to maintain at least as effective penalty levels.
State Plans are not required to impose monetary penalties on state and local government employers. See 1956.11c2x. Five 5 states and one territory have State Plans that cover only state and local government employees: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands. Therefore, the requirements to increase the penalty levels do not apply to these State Plans. Twenty-one states and one U.S. territory have State Plans that cover both private sector employees and state and local government employees: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. They must increase their penalties for privatesector employers.
Other than as listed above, this final rule does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
E:FRFM14JAR1.SGM

14JAR1