Laserfiche WebLink
Some commenters asked Treasury to change how it identifies eligible sectors, including <br />suggestions to add to or subtract from the list of eligible sectors. For example, some commenters <br />asked Treasury to consider using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) -Standard Occupational <br />Classifications to identify specific sectors or occupations, in contrast to the approach taken in the <br />interim final rule, which included a mixture of economic sectors, industries, and occupations. <br />Many commenters asked Treasury to explicitly clarify that a particular industry or occupation is <br />covered by the definition of "essential critical infrastructure sector." Some of these commenters <br />represented public employees, e.g., employees of facilities and public works; public utilities; <br />courthouse employees; police, fire, and emergency medical services; and waste and wastewater <br />services. Others were a mixture of public and private sector employees, e.g., coroners and <br />medical examiners; transportation infrastructure (specifically electric vehicle infrastructure and <br />supply equipment); electric utilities, natural gas, and steam supply; and grocery employees. <br />Other commenters requested that Treasury prohibit certain occupations currently included in the <br />eligible workers definition (e.g., police and corrections officers) from receiving premium pay for <br />performance of regular duties. <br />Commenters also asked Treasury to clarify which government workers are included in <br />the definition of eligible workers. The interim final rule included as an essential critical <br />infrastructure sector, "any work performed by an employee of a State, local, or Tribal <br />government." Some commenters requested that Treasury adopt a definition of eligible worker <br />that includes all employees of the recipient government; however, all public employees of state, <br />local, and Tribal governments are already included in the interim final rule definition of "eligible <br />worker." Commenters asked whether this includes governments that did not receive SLFRF <br />funds (i.e., "non recipient governments"). Many commenters from Tribal governments requested <br />222 <br />