As drafted, the Regulations do not provide certainty or consistency.  For example, there is no detail on the best management practices that will be required, and no standard for the development of compliance plans, mitigation plans or timeline to react to the everchanging Federal guidance from OSHA and CDC.

On page 13, the “Known COVID-19” definition establishes an impossible standard because the employer “should have known that the person has tested positive for COVID-19” and a plaintiff only has to argue that the employer did not employ “reasonable diligence” which is undefined.  This places an undo burden on the employer since we cannot control what an employee does outside of normal business hours, and we have no way of knowing if an employee is "suspected" of COVID exposure.

On page 14, the statement that “Physical separation of an employee from other employees or persons by a permanent, solid floor to ceiling wall constitutes physical distancing from an employee or other person stationed on the other side of the wall” is impractical and inconsistent with other practices and current COVID-19 guidance.  Physical separation does not have to be achieved by permanent or floor to ceiling walls and would be cost prohibitive.  Temporary plexiglass and other hard surface barriers are regularly used to retrofit workstations, counters and cubicles as physical separation “shields” or barriers for employees.

On page 16, at § 40.A.#3, has no bearing on risk assessments or employee health and safety protections.  Serologic testing is a public health policy issue and not an employer issue.  Further, we do not have medical record access and this provision has no clarification about HIPAA obligations and liabilities. 

The regulations are over-reaching and we should rely on the CDC guidelines, and the regulations proposed should be "rejected".