Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations 54029 employees about their rights.126 But notice to those employees in their assist in providing the prescribed notice several comments complain that the respective language or languages or to to employees. As some comments state, rule does not define “significant.” 127 direct them to the Board’s Web site, electronic communication is now a Baker & McKenzie proposes that the hitp://www.nirb.gov, where they can routine practice in many workplaces standard be 40 percent specifically of obtain copies of the notice in their and the source of much information the employer’s production and respective languages. The Board has from employers to their employees. maintenance workforce, while the also decided to add to the notice However, the Board has clarified the National Immigration Law Center instructions for obtaining foreign- final rule to mandate only that, if an proposes a 5 percent standard. Another _ language translations of the notice. employer customarily communicates comment urges that translated notices Employers will be required to request — personnel rules or policies to its be required whenever any of the foreign-language notices from the Board employees in that manner, it must also employees are not proficient in or obtain them from the Board’s Web do so with respect to the notice of English.128 The U.S. Chamber of site in the same manner as the English- — employee rights under the NLRA. The Commerce asserts that a safe harbor is language notice. If an employer requests concern that the rule will discourage needed for employers when a notice in from the Board a notice in a particular employers from using new technologies a particular language is not yet available language in which the notice is not is apparently not widely shared and, in from the Board. Moreover, a few available, the requesting employer will the Board’s view, is implausible. comments contend that the Board not b