Remember when the U.S. Department of Labor’s stated position by the Office of Federal Contractors Compliance Programs (OFCCP) was “we really are interested in federal contractors’ views”?  Apparently, the agency really doesn’t want to hear that much from the regulated public – at least when it comes to developing new affirmative action and non-discrimination regulations. 

OFCCP has announced that it refuses to provide any additional time for comments to be submitted on its proposed regulations under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act that would impose fundamental changes in federal contractors’ obligations involving persons with disabilities. And by the way, no explanation or justification was provided by OFCCP – the answer is simply “no.” 

Just before the holidays, OFCCP issued its lengthy proposed 503 regulations.  The comments were to be provided in 60 days, by February 7, 2012 – the bare minimum notice that must be provided when major regulations are proposed.  Immediately recognizing the breadth of the regulations, many federal contractors, trade associations and their representatives requested additional time to assess the proposed regulations, provide informed comments and to offer alternatives, if appropriate. 

Even a cursory review of the proposed regulations indicated that the OFCCP was proposing fundamental changes that required serious consideration and comments, including:

• “Goals” that clearly will operate as quotas and impact federal contractors’ ability to hire and promote the best qualified employees;
• Significant new data collection and record-keeping obligations that requires employers repeatedly to collect confidential information from employees about their disabilities;
• Procedures that will require federal contractors to significantly revamp their on-boarding procedures and HR information systems – most of which have been highly customized at significant cost to contractors to meet the federal government’s previously issued internet applicant regulations.
• Redundant and parallel enforcement of ADA obligations that already are enforced by another Federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and,
• The cost estimates that OFCCP cites to justify its proposed regulatory burdens clearly are mistaken, and woefully understate the costs and burdens of the proposed regulations. 

The proposed 503 regulations warrant significant comment and input.  It makes you wonder why OFCCP won’t allow a reasonable period for parties to provide the information so that there can be fully informed rulemaking.  What’s the rush, OFCCP? Don’t want to hear opposing views?