IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NO MESSAGES will be sent until  26 August 2013.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

OECD TRADE FACILITATION INDICATORS [3 May 2013]

http://www.oecd.org/trade/facilitation/indicators.htm

To help governments improve their border procedures, reduce trade costs, boost trade flows and reap greater benefits from international trade, OECD has developed a set of trade facilitation indicators that identify areas for action and enable the potential impact of reforms to be assessed.

Press Release 3 May 2013

Trade facilitation agreement would add billions to global economy, says OECD

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/trade-facilitation-agreement-would-add-billions-to-global-economy-says-oecd.htm

03/05/2013 -  Multilateral agreement to cut red tape in international trade would dramatically reduce trading costs and add a substantial boost to the global economy, according to new OECD research.

The OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators estimate that comprehensive implementation of all measures currently being negotiated in the World Trade Organization’s Doha Development Round would reduce total trade costs by 10% in advanced economies and by 13-15.5% in developing countries.  Reducing global trade costs by 1% would increase worldwide income by more than USD $40 billion, most of which would accrue in developing countries, according to the OECD.

“Trade facilitation is about easing access to the global marketplace,” OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said. “Complicated border processes and excess red tape raise costs, which ultimately fall on businesses, consumers and our economies. The trade facilitation negotiations offer countries a golden opportunity to reduce or eliminate these bottlenecks, cut the cost of trading, boost the flow of goods and reap greater benefits from international trade,” Mr Gurría said.

The 16 new trade facilitation indicators correspond to the main policy areas under negotiation at the WTO, including the availability of trade-related information, the simplification and harmonisation of documents, the streamlining of procedures and the use of automated processes and advance rulings.

The Indicators estimate the impact of addressing specific hurdles in the trade and border procedures in 133 countries while guiding governments as they prioritise trade facilitation actions. The Indicators also offer a roadmap for the technical assistance and capacity-building efforts needed to ensure that emerging and developing economies make the most of trading opportunities.

OECD analysis shows that trade facilitation not only benefits importers. By reducing trade costs, facilitation also helps boosts exports significantly,  thus allowing firms greater participation in the global value chains that characterise international trade.

Some of the key findings of this work also include the following:

·         In some African countries, revenue losses from inefficient border procedures are estimated to exceed 5% of GDP;

·         Harmonising and simplifying documents would reduce trade costs by 3% for low-income countries and by 2.7% for lower middle-income countries;

·         Streamlining procedures would bring further trade cost reductions of 2.8% for upper middle-income countries, 2.2% for lower middle-income countries and 1% for advanced economies;

·         Automating processes would reduce trade costs by more than 2% for all countries studied;

·         Ensuring the availability of trade-related information would generate cost savings of 2% for advanced economies, 1.4% for lower middle-income countries and 1.6% for low-income countries.

The OECD work on trade facilitation indicators (TFIs) was undertaken to measure the relative economic and trade impact of trade facilitation measures currently under negotiation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) on trade flows and trade costs in all WTO member countries. Individual country analyses are available here.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2013 [3 May 2013]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[full-text, 38 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit.supp.toc.htm

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 165,000 in April, and the unemployment

rate was little changed at 7.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services,

food services and drinking places, retail trade, and health care.

Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has

declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed

persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however,

unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult women

(6.7 percent) declined in April, while the rates for adult men (7.1

percent), teenagers (24.1 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks (13.2

percent), and Hispanics (9.0 percent) showed little or no change. The

jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted),

little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In April, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27

weeks or more) declined by 258,000 to 4.4 million; their share of the

unemployed declined by 2.2 percentage points to 37.4 percent. Over the

past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed has decreased by

687,000, and their share has declined by 3.1 percentage points. (See

table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.3 percent in April,

unchanged over the month but down from 63.6 percent in January. The

employment-population ratio, 58.6 percent, was about unchanged over

the month and has shown little movement, on net, over the past year.

(See table A-1.)

In April, the number of persons employed part time for economic

reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers)

increased by 278,000 to 7.9 million, largely offsetting a decrease in

March. These individuals were working part time because their hours

had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

(See table A-8.)

In April, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor

force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not

seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,

wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime

in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because

they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

(See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 835,000 discouraged workers

in April, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not

seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently

looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.

The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor

force in April had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the

survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

(See table A-16.)

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

GEOGRAPHIC GUIDE

http://www.bls.gov/guide/geography/

When seeking information by geographic area (International to local), this guide can be extremely useful.

Clicking on a 'More' button below will take you to a new table showing detailed data availability by area.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

U.S. Household Savings for Retirement in 2010

John J. Topoleski, Analyst in Income Security

April 30, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43057.pdf

[full-text, 24 pages]

Summary

Whether households have sufficient savings from which to ensure adequate income throughout

retirement is a concern of households and, therefore, policymakers. The retirement income

landscape has been changing over the past few decades. Although most households are eligible to

receive Social Security benefits in retirement, over the past 30 years, the types of non-Social

Security sources of retirement income have been changing. About half of the U.S. workforce is

covered by an employer-sponsored pension plan. An increasing number of employers offer

defined contributions (DC) pension plans (i.e., tax-advantaged accounts in which employee, and

sometimes employer, contributions accrue investment returns) in lieu of traditional defined

benefit (DB) pension plans (i.e., monthly payments to a retiree by a former employer). This shift

in the nature of employer-sponsored pensions places more responsibility on workers to financially

prepare for their own retirement. Households also save for retirement using Individual Retirement

Accounts (IRAs), into which contributions, up to a specified limit, are tax-deductible for

individuals without an employer-sponsored pension or who have an employer-sponsored pension

and who earn less than specified limits.

Congress has several reasons for its interest in the retirement preparedness of American

households: income from Social Security may be insufficient to provide for an adequate standard

of living in retirement for U.S. households; congressional actions may encourage or discourage

employer and household efforts to provide for their own well-being in retirement; and the U.S.

Treasury will forego $117 billion in FY2013 as a result of tax policies that are designed to

encourage employer and worker retirement savings. President Obama’s FY2014 budget would

prohibit contributions to DC pension plans and IRAs that have a value over $3.4 million. This

threshold is specified to be equivalent to the maximum annual payment allowed from a DB

pension plan, which is $205,000 in 2013.

This report provides data on a variety of household wealth measures in 2010 from the Federal

Reserve’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finances. Although the amount of retirement assets is the

primary focus of the report, other measures of wealth (such as the amount of total assets, financial

assets, total debt, net worth, and housing equity) are also included. The report classifies the

amount of assets and debt by the age of the head of the household for both single and married

households. In general, the amount of household wealth is higher for married households than for

single households. Household wealth generally increases as the age of the head of the household

increases, although some measures decrease for those households in which the head of the

household is aged 75 or older. In general, the median values are less than the average values,

which is an indication that some households hold relatively large amounts of wealth compared

with most households.

Among households with retirement assets, households in which the head is younger than 55 years

old are more likely to own DC pension plan assets than they are likely to own assets from IRAs,

whereas households in which the head is aged 55 or older are more likely to have IRA assets.

Ownership of a principal residence is likely to be a factor that affects the accumulation of

retirement assets. An important saving goal for younger households is home ownership, whereas

preparing for retirement is an important saving goal for older households. As the age of the head

of the household increases, the percentage of assets represented by the household’s principal

residence decreases, although there is not a discernible pattern to the percentage of wealth that

retirement assets represent.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Types of Retirement Plans and Accounts ......................................................................................... 3

Defined Benefit Pension Plans .................................................................................................. 3

Defined Contribution Pension Plans .......................................................................................... 3

Individual Retirement Accounts ................................................................................................ 3

Household Net Worth in 2010 ......................................................................................................... 4

Assets, Debt, and Net Worth Among Single and Married Households in 2010 .............................. 5

Defined Contribution and IRA Balances Among All Households in 2010 .................................... 11

Percentage of Households with an IRA Balance, DC Plan Balance, or DB Pension in

2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 13

DC and IRA Balances Among Households with DC or IRA Balances in 2010 ............................ 14

Value of a Principal Residence as a Percentage of Total Assets in 2010 ....................................... 15

Home Equity as a Percentage of the Value of the Principal Residence in 2010 ............................ 16

Implications for Policy................................................................................................................... 17

Figures

Figure 1. Net Worth in 2010 Among Single and Married Households ............................................ 5

Figure 2. DC Plan and IRA assets in 2010 Among Single and Married Households .................... 11

Figure 3. Percentage of Households in 2010 with an IRA Balance, DC Account Balance, or a Defined Benefit Pension ........................ 14

Figure 4. DC and IRA Balances in 2010 Among Single and Married Households with DC  or IRA Balances ......................................... 15

Figure 5. Value of a Principal Residence in 2010 as a Percentage of Total Assets ........................ 16

Figure 6. Principal Residence Equity as a Percentage of the Value of the Principal Residence ........................................... 17

Tables

Table 1. Median Assets, Debt, Net Worth and Income Among Single Households in 2010 ........... 7

Table 2. Average Assets, Debt, Net Worth, and Income Among Single Households in 2010 ....................................... 8

Table 3. Median Assets, Debt, Net Worth and Income Among Married Households in 2010 ..................................... 9

Table 4. Average Assets, Debt, Net Worth and Income Among Married Households in 2010 .................................... 10

Table 5. Distribution of Retirement Assets Among Households in 2010 ...................................... 12

Appendixes

Appendix. Survey of Consumer Finances ..................................................................................... 19

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Expediting the Return to Work: Approaches in the Unemployment Compensation Program

Julie M. Whittaker, Specialist in Income Security

May 1, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43044.pdf

[full-text, 38 pages]

Summary

The most recent recession led to an unprecedented increase in the number of those unemployed

for more than 26 weeks (the long-term unemployed). As a result, congressional interest in policy

initiatives to expedite the return to work grew. This report examines a variety of initiatives and

measures within the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program that might reduce long-term

unemployment for beneficiaries.

Even before the recent recession began, large numbers of UC recipients exhausted their

entitlement to regular state benefits before returning to work. In 2007, one in three recipients

exhausted their benefits. In the depths of the recession, more than half of the recipients exhausted

their regular benefits, with most of them continuing to receive unemployment insurance benefits

through federally financed extended unemployment benefits. Based on current forecasts of a slow

recovery and on trends that were apparent before the recession, it appears likely that the

exhaustion rate will remain well above its pre-recession level for many years to come. The

adverse consequences of not being able to find new work and of exhausting benefits can be

severe for the recipients themselves, as well as for government budgets in terms of lost revenue

and higher expenditures, and for the economy in lost output.

During and immediately following the recession, Congress provided incentives for states to adopt

innovative ways of helping unemployed individuals return to work and enacted legislation that

temporarily increased funding for various reemployment and training services. As the labor

market continues to recover and the temporary funding ends, Congress may again consider policy

initiatives that go beyond income replacement. These may include strategies that would speed up

the reemployment of recipients who will not be returning to their previous employers.

After a brief description of the federal-state unemployment insurance system, this report

examines trends in the duration of unemployment benefits and then reviews a wide range of

approaches for speeding the return to work. The report emphasizes measures that have recently

been considered by lawmakers or have been tried on an experimental basis, particularly if

evaluations of their impacts on duration of UC benefit receipt are available.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of Unemployment Insurance Programs ........................................................................... 1

Regular Unemployment Compensation ..................................................................................... 1

Extended Benefits and Temporary Programs ............................................................................ 2

Extended Benefits ............................................................................................................... 2

Emergency Unemployment Compensation ......................................................................... 2

Long-Term Unemployment and Patterns of UC Benefit Exhaustion .............................................. 3

Duration of Regular UC Benefits .............................................................................................. 3

Trends in the Exhaustion Rate and in the Average Duration of Receipt.................................... 4

Exhaustion Rate................................................................................................................... 5

Average Duration of Regular UC Benefits .......................................................................... 6

Explaining the Trends in Increased Exhaustion Rates and Average Duration of

Benefit Receipt ....................................................................................................................... 8

Changes in Underlying UC Program .................................................................................. 8

Changes in the Labor Market .............................................................................................. 9

Outlook Under Current Law .................................................................................................... 11

Approaches for Expediting the Return to Work ............................................................................. 12

Job Search Requirements and Assistance ................................................................................ 13

Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services ................................................................. 15

Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments ..................................................................... 17

Additional Incentives to Recipients ......................................................................................... 19

Reemployment Bonuses .................................................................................................... 19

Wage Insurance ................................................................................................................. 21

Self-Employment Assistance ............................................................................................. 22

Additional Incentives to Employers ........................................................................................ 24

Prohibition of Discrimination ............................................................................................ 24

Tax Credits ........................................................................................................................ 25

GeorgiaWorks and Related State Programs ....................................................................... 27

Short-time Compensation .................................................................................................. 29

Retraining ................................................................................................................................ 32

Retraining While Receiving Unemployment Compensation ............................................ 32

Workforce Investment Act ................................................................................................. 33

Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... 35

Figures

Figure 1. Percentage of Recipients Exhausting Regular Unemployment Compensation Benefits, 1973 to 2012 ........................... 6

Figure 2. Average Duration of Regular Unemployment Compensation, 1973 to 2012 ................... 7

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 35

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register

Maeve P. Carey, Analyst in Government Organization and Management

May 1, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

[full-text, 21 pages]

Summary

Federal rulemaking is an important mechanism through which the federal government

implements policy. Federal agencies issue regulations pursuant to statutory authority granted by

Congress. Therefore, Congress may have an interest in performing oversight of those regulations.

Measuring federal regulatory activity can be a useful way for Congress to conduct that oversight.

The number of federal rules issued annually and the total number of pages in the Federal Register

are often referred to as measures of the total federal regulatory burden.

Certain methods of quantifying regulatory activity, however, may provide an imperfect portrayal

of the total federal rulemaking burden. For example, the number of final rules published each

year is generally in the range of 2,500-4,500, according to the Government Accountability Office

(GAO). Some of those rules have a large effect on the economy, and others have a significant

legal and/or policy effect, even if the costs and benefits are minimal. On the other hand, many

federal rules are routine in nature and impose minimal regulatory burden, if any. In addition, rules

that are deregulatory in nature and those that repeal existing rules are still defined as “rules”

under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.) and are therefore included

in that total.

The Federal Register provides documentation of the government’s regulatory and other actions,

and some scholars, commentators, and public officials have used the total number of Federal

Register pages each year as a measure for the total amount of regulatory activity. Because the

Federal Register has been in print since the 1930s, the number of pages can be useful for crosstime

comparisons. However, the total number of Federal Register pages may not be an accurate

way to measure regulatory activity for several reasons. In addition to publishing proposed and

final rules in the Federal Register, agencies publish other items that may be related to regulations,

such as notices of public meetings and extensions of comment periods. The Federal Register also

contains many other items related to non-regulatory activities, including presidential documents,

notices, and corrections. In 2011, approximately 32% of the total pages in the Federal Register

were in the “Rules and Regulations” section, the section in which final rules are published.

This report serves to inform the congressional debate over rulemaking by analyzing different

ways to measure federal rulemaking activity. The report provides data on and analysis of the total

number of rules issued each year, as well as information on other types of rules, such as “major”

rules, “significant” rules, and “economically significant” rules. These categories have been

created by various statutes and executive orders containing requirements that may be triggered if

a regulation falls into one of the categories. When available, data are provided on each type of

rule. Finally, the report provides data on the number of pages and documents in the Federal

Register each year and analyzes the content of the Federal Register.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Brief Overview of Federal Rulemaking ........................................................................................... 2

Statutory Requirements ............................................................................................................. 2

Executive Branch Requirements and Guidance ........................................................................ 4

Number of Final Rules Published in Recent Years .......................................................................... 5

“Major” Rules .................................................................................................................................. 6

“Significant” Rules .......................................................................................................................... 8

“Economically Significant” Rules ................................................................................................. 10

Rules Issued Without Notice and Comment Under “Good Cause” ............................................... 13

“Interim Final” Rules .............................................................................................................. 13

“Direct Final” Rules ................................................................................................................ 13

Number of Pages and Documents in the Federal Register ............................................................ 14

The Federal Register Act ......................................................................................................... 14

The Content of the Federal Register ....................................................................................... 14

Figures

Figure 1. Number of Pages Published Annually in the Federal Register, 1937-2011 .................. 16

Tables

Table 1. Total Number of Final Rules Published in Recent Years, 1997-2012 ................................ 5

Table 2. Total Number of “Major” Final Rules Published, 1997-2012............................................ 7

Table 3. Total Number of Reviews at OIRA, 1994-2012 ................................................................ 9

Table 4. Total Number of “Economically Significant” and Non-“Economically Significant” Reviews at OIRA, 1994-2012 ........................ 11

Table 5. Average Number of Days for “Economically Significant” and Non- “Economically Significant” Reviews, 1994-2012 ........................ 12

Table 6. Annual Content of the Federal Register: Number of Pages and Number of Documents, 1976-2011 .......................................... 17

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

OECD EMPLOYMENT DATABASE

http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/onlineoecdemploymentdatabase.htm

or

www.oecd.org/employment/database

Our online Employment database  offers a large range up-to-date statistics for international comparisons and trends over time.

Find data on:

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.