Proposed Rule2025-12275
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service Staffing
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 1, 2025
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentEmployment and Training Administration
Abstract
The Department of Labor (Department) is proposing to remove the requirement that States use State merit staff to provide Wagner- Peyser Employment Service (ES) services. This deregulatory action would allow States to use the staffing model that provides the required services with the most efficient model for their State. This summary can be found at www.regulations.gov by searching by the RIN: 1205-AC22.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28239-28245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12275]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Part 652
[Docket ETA-2025-0005]
RIN 1205-AC22
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service Staffing
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department) is proposing to remove
the requirement that States use State merit staff to provide Wagner-
Peyser Employment Service (ES) services. This deregulatory action would
allow States to use the staffing model that provides the required
services with the most efficient model for their State. This summary
can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> by searching by the RIN: 1205-AC22.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. ETA-2025-
[[Page 28240]]
0005 and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1205-AC22, by the
following method:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Search for the above-referenced RIN, open the proposed rule, and follow
the on-screen instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking or ``RIN 1205-AC22.''
Please be advised that the Department will post comments received
that relate to this proposed rule to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>,
including any personal information provided. The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal and all
comments posted there are available and accessible to the public.
Please do not submit comments containing trade secrets, confidential or
proprietary commercial or financial information, personal health
information, sensitive personally identifiable information (for
example, social security numbers, driver's license or state
identification numbers, passport numbers, or financial account
numbers), or other information that you do not want to be made
available to the public. Should the agency become aware of such
information, the agency reserves the right to redact or refrain from
posting sensitive information, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate
comments, including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane
language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; or that
contain hate speech. Please note that depending on how information is
submitted, the agency may not be able to redact the information, and
instead reserves the right to refrain from posting the information or
comment in such situations.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, a
plain-language summary of the proposed rule of not more than 100 words,
or comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (search using
RIN 1205-AC22 or Docket No. ETA-2025-0005). If you need assistance to
review the comments, contact the Office of Policy Development and
Research at 202-693-3700 (this is not a toll-free number).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Vitelli, Administrator,
Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C-4526,
Washington, DC 20210, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#32445b46575e5e5b1c595b5f5057405e4b72565d5e1c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15637c617079797c3b7e7c78777067796c55717a793b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>, Telephone: (202)
693-3980 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number). For persons with a
hearing or speech disability who need assistance to use the telephone
system, please dial 711 to access telecommunications relay services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 \1\ established the ES program, which
is a nationwide program of labor-exchange services. The ES program
seeks to improve the functioning of the nation's labor markets by
matching job seekers with employers that are seeking workers. Section
3(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act directs the Secretary of Labor
(Secretary) to assist States in coordinating the State public service
employment offices throughout the country by developing and prescribing
minimum standards of efficiency and promoting uniformity in the
operation of the system of public employment offices. The Department
has historically relied on the Secretary's authority in section 3(a)
and 5(b) to require States to provide labor exchange services with
State ``merit staff,'' meaning government employees hired and managed
under a merit-based personnel system described in 5 CFR 900, subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the early 1990s, the Department provided Colorado and
Massachusetts with limited flexibility to set their own staffing
requirements for the provision of ES services. In 1998, the Department
permitted Michigan to use State and local merit staff to deliver ES
services, pursuant to a settlement agreement arising out of Michigan v.
Herman.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 81 F. Supp. 2d 840 (W.D. Mich. 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA) \3\ to modernize the nation's workforce development system.
WIOA did not include an ES merit-staffing requirement. Regulations
implementing WIOA were published in the Federal Register \4\ on August
19, 2016, and were effective on October 18, 2016. Among the provisions
codified in the 2016 WIOA regulations was Sec. 652.215, which
continued to require the use of State merit-staffing for the delivery
of ES services, except for the three States that were previously
granted exemptions: Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 113-128
\4\ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Department of
Labor, Final Rule 81 FR 56072 (Aug. 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through rulemaking effective February 5, 2020, the Department
removed the requirement that ES services be provided only by State
merit staff,\5\ hereafter referred to as the 2020 Final Rule. In the
preamble to the 2020 Final Rule, the Department explained that it
sought to allow States maximum flexibility in staffing arrangements to
allow them to better align WIOA and ES staffing. Following the 2020
Final Rule, several States were approved to use a variety of staffing
models to provide their ES services, as described in their approved
WIOA State plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Wagner-Peyser Staffing Flexibility, 85 FR 592.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023, the Department again changed the requirements in Sec.
652.215 through notice-and-comment rulemaking to reinstate the
requirement that States use State merit staff to deliver ES services
and reinstated the exemptions for Massachusetts, Michigan, and
Colorado. These regulations were published in the Federal Register on
November 24, 2023,\6\ and became effective on January 23, 2024. The
Department also provided 24 months for States to comply with the State
merit-staffing requirements in Sec. 652.215. This meant that States
would have to comply with the provisions in Sec. 652.215 by January
22, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Wagner-Peyser Act Staffing, 88 FR 82658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
The Department is proposing to remove the requirement that ES
services must be delivered by State merit staff, and reestablish the
flexibility permitted under the 2020 Final Rule, because the best
reading of the Wagner-Peyser Act is that there is no statutory basis
for the Department to require States to deliver ES services using only
State merit staff. Instead, sec. 3(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act requires
the Department to assist in coordinating State ES offices in developing
and prescribing ``minimum standards of efficiency'' in the provision of
ES programs but notably does not explicitly require the use of State
merit staff. While the Department has previously suggested that sec.
5(b) also supports a State merit-staffing requirement, that section
does not impose such a requirement, but rather simply requires the
Department to make certifications to the Department of the Treasury
regarding the coordination of ES and Unemployment Insurance (UI).
Under Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,\7\
courts previously deferred to permissible agency interpretations of
statutes that were silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific
issue; however, in 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Loper Bright
Enterprises v. Raimondo,\8\ which
[[Page 28241]]
overruled Chevron. Recognizing that for all statutes there is a single,
best reading, the Court in Loper Bright held that under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., courts must
exercise independent judgment to determine if an agency has acted
within its statutory authority and may not defer to the agency's
interpretation simply because a statute is ambiguous. In light of the
Loper Bright decision, the Department has tentatively reassessed the
State merit-staffing requirement in the ES program and has determined
that the State merit-staffing requirement does not comport with the
best reading of the statute. The best reading of the Wagner-Peyser Act
is that the Department does not have authority to impose a State merit-
staffing requirement for all State staff in the ES. Section 3(a) of the
Act only authorizes the Department to establish ``minimum standards of
efficiency''--it strains this limited statutory authorization beyond
its breaking point to read into it the authority to mandate the use of
State merit staff, especially when it is compared with section
303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act which was enacted
contemporaneously with the Wagner-Peyser Act and explicitly requires
State merit-staffing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
\8\ 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is therefore proposing to remove this requirement,
consistent with the directives in Executive Order 14129, ``Ensuring
Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of
Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,'' dated February 19,
2025, the Presidential Memorandum titled ``Directing the Repeal of
Unlawful Regulations,'' dated April 9, 2025, and OMB Memorandum M-25-
28, ``Guidance Implementing the President's Memorandum Directing the
Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,'' dated May 7, 2025.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the 2020 Final
Rule, the Department received comments suggesting that there was a
statutory requirement for ES services to be provided by State merit
staff. Commenters claimed that the Intergovernmental Personnel Act
(IPA) \9\ named the Wagner-Peyser Act as one of the two acts
administered by the Department that had a statutory requirement to
provide services through merit-staffing. The Department disagreed with
this claim and refuted the existence of statutory requirement for
merit-staffing ES services. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
regulations implementing the IPA provided a list of programs with a
statutory or regulatory requirement for merit staff. The Wagner-Peyser
Act is listed as having a statutory requirement for merit staff.\10\
However, there is no indication that Congress, in including the Wagner-
Peyser Act in sec. 208 of the IPA, intended to impose a merit-staffing
requirement not found in the Act itself, or to impliedly amend the Act
itself to include such a requirement. Rather, this appears to reflect
the existing merit-system functions being carried out by the Department
at that time. Additionally, the question of Congress' intent in
enacting the IPA was considered by the court in Michigan v. Herman.
After reviewing the text and legislative history of the Wagner-Peyser
Act and the IPA, the court concluded that the Wagner-Peyser Act ``does
not explicitly require merit-staffing.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 4728.
\10\ 5 CFR part 900, subpart F, Appendix A.
\11\ Michigan v. Herman, 81 F. Supp. 2d at 847-848.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, Appendix A of OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 900 continues
to describe a statutory requirement for the ES, citing sec. 5(b) of the
Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49d(b). However, section 5(b) does not
impose any statutory requirement for merit-staffing ES services.
Rather, as noted above, it merely requires the Secretary to certify
that States are complying with section 303 of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. 503(a)(1) (which requires the use of merit staff by States in
administering their Unemployment Insurance programs), and that States
are coordinating ES activities with the provision of UI claimant
services. Neither the IPA nor the OPM regulations contain an
independent legal requirement for merit-staffing in the ES.
The best reading of the Wagner-Peyser Act is that it does not
authorize the Department to require the use of State merit staff to
provide ES services, and given that the regulated community needs to
efficiently administer workforce programs with limited resources, the
Department determined it would hinder efficiency to mandate that States
use a particular staffing model.
The Department is proposing to eliminate the State merit-staffing
requirement by removing Sec. 652.215 from the Wagner-Peyser Act
regulations. In addition to the merit-staffing requirement in paragraph
(a), Sec. 652.215 includes an exception for Colorado, Massachusetts,
and Michigan to continue to use staffing flexibilities in paragraph
(b), a requirement for these three States to participate in an
evaluation concerning their delivery of ES services in paragraph (c),
and a date by which all States must comply with the requirements of the
section in paragraph (d). Without a State merit-staffing requirement in
paragraph (a), the remaining paragraphs are no longer necessary. As
such, the Department is proposing to remove all paragraphs of Sec.
652.215 from the Code of Federal Regulations.
As a result of this rulemaking, States would be able to use
whichever staffing method they choose. Regardless of the staffing
method employed, States still must provide services required under the
Wagner-Peyser Act. These services include job search and placement
assistance for jobseekers, recruitment services and special technical
services for employers, re-employment services for UI claimants, labor
exchange services for workers who have received notice of permanent or
impending layoff, referrals and financial aid application assistance
for training and educational resources and programs, and the
development and provision of labor market and occupational information.
These services help the labor market to function more efficiently by
matching employers with available workers.
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192
(Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted
by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
[[Page 28242]]
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Under section 6(a) of E.O. 12866, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), determines whether a regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to OMB review. E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to
submit ``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposed
rule was submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; it
is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits.
a. Statement of Need
The Department proposes to rescind its requirement that services in
the Employment Service (ES) be delivered exclusively by State merit
staff because, upon reexamination, that mandate lacks a sound statutory
foundation and exceeds the Department's authority under the
Wagner[hyphen]Peyser Act. Section 3(a) of the Act empowers the
Department to assist States in prescribing ``minimum standards of
efficiency'' for ES programs, but it nowhere compels the use of State
merit[hyphen]system employees. Reading the provision as authorizing a
blanket merit-staffing rule distorts the Act's plain text and
legislative design and imposes undue burden upon States' limited State
ES resources. This burden falls disproportionately on States that made
changes to their ES staffing models in response to the 2020 Final Rule.
Further, this proposed rule offers to reduce the burden on States in
advance of the required 2026 WIOA State Plan modification.
b. Alternatives Considered
OMB Circular A-4, which outlines best practices in regulatory
analysis, directs agencies to analyze alternatives if such alternatives
best satisfy the philosophy and principles of E.O. 12866. The
Department considered alternatives as part of determining whether to
issue this NPRM. These alternatives included delaying the compliance
date of the merit staffing requirement in 20 CFR 652.215 by one year or
delaying the compliance date by two years. Ultimately, the Department
decided that removing 20 CFR 652.215 in its entirety would be the least
burdensome for the States, as the status quo is unacceptable.
The Department considered delaying the compliance date in 20 CFR
652.215 by one year to allow additional time for the Department to
review the 2023 Wagner-Peyser Staffing Final Rule. However, this would
have placed additional cost burdens on the States, as this delay would
have changed staffing requirements in the middle of the State planning
cycle. With a one-year delay to the compliance date, States changing
staffing systems would have to submit a modification to their State
plan in 2027, along with a new State plan in 2028. The Department also
considered a two-year delay to the compliance date, which would have
aligned the change in staffing models to align with the 2028 submission
of a required 4-year State Plan. While this alternative was deemed less
burdensome to the States in terms of reporting requirements to the
Department, ultimately, it was determined that the Department did not
require additional time to review the 2023 Wagner-Peyser Staffing Final
Rule, and that the removal of the merit-staffing requirement in its
entirety would be the least burdensome to the States.
c. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule eliminates a requirement rather than imposing a
new one. The Department anticipates that the rule will result in costs
related to rule familiarization. Any voluntary changes to staffing
models may incur transfer costs during a transition phase. In addition
to monetized cost savings, this rule will likely provide non-
quantifiable benefits to States and to society. For example, the added
staffing flexibility this rule gives to States will allow them to
identify and achieve administrative efficiencies. The Department seeks
comments on these anticipated costs, benefits, and transfers, including
overlooked studies and data.
i. Rule Familiarization Costs
Regulatory familiarization costs represent direct costs to States
associated with reviewing the new regulation. The Department
anticipates that the changes proposed by the rule will be reviewed by
Human Resources Managers (SOC code \12\ 11-3121) employed by State
Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The Department anticipates that it will take
one Human Resources Manager an average of 1 hour to review the proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This analysis uses codes from the Standard Occupational
Classification (SOC) system and the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics data show that the median hourly wage of State
government Human Resources Managers is $51.90.\13\ The Department
assumes a 62% benefits rate \14\ and a 17% overhead rate,\15\ so the
full loaded hourly wage is $92.90 [= $51.90 + ($51.90 x 62%) + ($51.90
x 17%)]. Therefore, the one-time rule familiarization cost for all 54
jurisdictions (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) is estimated to be $5,017 (= $92.90
x 1 hour x 54 jurisdictions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ BLS, ``Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics,
National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates, NAICS 999200'' SOC Code 11-3121, May 2024, <a href="https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/999200">https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/999200</a> (last visited May 27, 2025).
\14\ BLS, ``National Compensation Survey, Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation,'' <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ecec/data.htm">https://www.bls.gov/ecec/data.htm</a> (last
visited May 27, 2025). For State and local government workers, wages
and salaries averaged $38.45 per hour worked in 2024, while benefit
costs averaged $23.81, which is a benefits rate of 62 percent.
\15\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage
Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory
Program,'' June 10, 2002, <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0650-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0650-0005</a> (last visited May 27, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Transition Costs and Transfer Payments From States to Employees
As there is no mandate within these proposed regulations to use one
specific staffing model, any changes from one staffing model to another
would be voluntary by the State, and would result in transition costs
to States as well as transfer payments from States to employees
providing ES services. Changing staffing systems is not without costs.
Even if the same employees provide Wagner-Peyser services, changing the
staffing system may still create burdens for the State and the
employees themselves. This may require a change in employer by moving
from State employment to local government employment and may have
consequences for the employee in terms of pay and benefits, including
health insurance and retirement benefits. Changing employers would also
require the time and expertise of Human Resources professionals to
process the paperwork to affect these changes. Because of these
considerations, the Department anticipates that States will need to
weigh the costs and benefits of any staffing model before making
changes.
In previous Wagner-Peyser rulemakings, the Department attempted to
quantify potential costs or cost
[[Page 28243]]
savings for the States. In the 2020 Final Rule, the Department surveyed
a range of States of different size classes and attempted to infer the
cost savings nationwide from allowing staffing flexibility. The total
estimated wage savings for the 2020 Final Rule was $6,754,691 per year
(2018$), which is approximately $8,631,000 in 2025 dollars. The
Department's analysis assumed a 50 percent substitution rate, meaning
that States would choose to re-staff half of their positions with
personnel other than State merit staff based on States' determination
that such models would be more efficient and less expensive. Wage
savings were expected to vary among States based on each State's
substitution rate.
In the 2023 Final Rule, the Department provided estimates of rule
familiarization costs and information collection costs; however, due to
data limitations, the Department was unable to quantify the transition
costs or transfer payments that were likely to be incurred by the three
States (i.e., Delaware, Indiana, and Missouri) that implemented the
staffing flexibility provided by the 2020 Final Rule as they
transitioned the delivery of all ES services to State merit staff. The
Department did not anticipate that the transition costs or transfer
payments would be large enough for the 2023 Final Rule to be deemed a
significant regulatory action under sec. 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
Neither analysis was a comprehensive analysis of the specific
individuals performing ES services for each specific State, the cost of
providing the same services under a different staffing model, or
whether there were other barriers or impediments to changing staffing
models other than the regulation at Sec. 652.215.
Removing the merit-staffing requirement will allow the States to
perform this granular analysis, consider their own State statutes and
agreements, and select the staffing model that delivers the required
services in the most efficient manner available to them. Some
jurisdictions may find that their current models are the most cost
efficient. Others may find that a more cost-efficient model exists and
decide to change staffing structures. Still others may find that a more
cost-efficient option exists but choose to remain with State merit-
staffing due to State statutes, collective bargaining agreements, or to
use ES staff as surge capacity for other governmental functions. The
Department lacks sufficient information about the changes States will
make to their staffing models; therefore, we are unable to conduct a
quantitative analysis of the transition costs to States associated with
this rulemaking. The Department invites comments on the anticipated
transition costs to States with the goal of ensuring thorough
consideration and discussion at the final rule stage.
In economic theory, it is assumed that economic actors are rational
and select the best choice after considering information on costs and
outcomes. Based on this, in practice, if States are deciding based on
staffing costs, it is unlikely that States would switch to a more
costly staffing model that would provide the same required services.
States would either choose their current status quo or a more cost-
efficient staffing model. Therefore, while the Department cannot
quantify the exact cost savings to the States, it can conclude that the
removal of the merit-staffing requirement will not be more costly than
the current baseline, and may yield cost savings to the States.
iii. Transfers From Employees to States
For the economic analysis in the 2020 Final Rule, the Department
surveyed a sample of States to estimate the wage savings that would
result from the added staffing flexibility. Eight States--representing
three tiers of Wagner-Peyser Act funding--were surveyed by the
Department and asked to provide the total number of Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) hours worked by State merit staff dedicated to
delivering Wagner-Peyser Act-funded services, as well as the
occupational title for all employees included in the FTE calculations.
Based on the staffing patterns in the three States that were previously
granted exemptions (i.e., Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan), the
Department assumed a 50 percent substitution rate in its wage savings
calculations.
The Department then calculated the difference between the fully
loaded wage rates of government workers and workers in all sectors to
estimate the wage savings for the States within each of the three
funding tiers. The results for each tier were then multiplied by the
appropriate ratio to estimate the wage savings for the entire tier. And
then the estimated wage savings for each tier were added together. In
total, the estimated savings of the 2020 Final Rule was $6,754,691 per
year (2018$), which is approximately $8,631,000 in 2025 dollars. Wage
savings will vary among States, with each State's wage savings
dependent on the choices it makes for staffing.
For purposes of E.O.s 12866 and 14192, the base wage and fringe
benefit portions of these estimated savings are categorized as
transfers from employees to States.
iv. Non-Quantifiable Benefits
This proposed rule will likely provide benefits to States and to
society. The added staffing flexibility will allow States to identify
and achieve administrative efficiencies. Given the estimated cost
savings that will result, States will be able to dedicate more
resources under the Wagner-Peyser Act to the provision of services to
job seekers and employers. These services, which help individuals find
jobs and help employers find workers, will provide economic benefits
through greater employment. These resources can also provide States
with added capacity to deliver more career services, including
individualized career services, which studies have shown improve
employment outcomes.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 6, requires
the Department to evaluate the economic impact of this rule on small
entities. The RFA defines small entities to include small businesses,
small organizations, including not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. The Department must determine whether the
rule will impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of such small entities. The Department concludes that this rule does
not regulate any small entities directly, so any regulatory effect on
small entities will be indirect. Accordingly, the Department has
determined this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
the RFA.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., include minimizing the paperwork burden on
affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions before an agency
can adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing
for public comment a summary of the collection of information and a
brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment
on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance
with the
[[Page 28244]]
PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This activity helps to ensure that
the public understands the Department's collection instructions,
respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can
properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The public is also not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any
other provisions of law, no person will be subject to penalty for
failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of
information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44
U.S.C. 3512).
This proposed rule does not impose any new collection of
information. The Department notes that the proposed change of the
staffing requirement would necessitate simple changes to the WIOA State
Plan Information Collection Request (1205-0522), which currently
requires States to provide information regarding the staffing model
States use to deliver ES services, among the other information States
submit in their State Plans. However, this proposed rule will not
change the burden hours associated with submitting the State plans to
the Department.
Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications Under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Wagner-Peyser WIOA Title I
Programs and Vocational Rehabilitation Adult Education
Agency: DOL-ETA.
Title of Collection: Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan
Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,
Wagner-Peyser WIOA Title I Programs and Vocational Rehabilitation Adult
Education.
Type of Review: Revision.
OMB Control Number: 1205-0522.
Description: Under the provisions of Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Governor of each State or Territory must
submit a Unified or Combined State Plan to the U.S. Department of
Labor, which is approved jointly with the Department of Education, that
fosters strategic alignment of the six core programs, which include the
adult, dislocated worker, youth, Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service,
AEFLA, and VR programs.
Affected Public: States, Local, and Tribal Governments.
Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: 38.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,135.8.
Estimated Total Annual Other Burden Costs: $501,503.
Regulations sections: DOL programs--20 CFR 652.211,
653.107(d),653.109(d), 676.105, 676.110, 676.115,676.120, 676.135,
676,140, 676.145,677.230, 678.310, 678.405, 678.750(a), 681.400(a)(1),
681.410(b)(2), 682.100,683.115. ED programs--34 CFR parts 361, 462 and
463.
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. E.O. 13132 also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications. The Department has reviewed this
proposed rule in light of these requirements and has concluded that it
meets the requirements of E.O. 13132 by enhancing, rather than
limiting, States' discretion in the administration of the Wagner-Peyser
Act ES program.
Accordingly, the Department has reviewed this proposed rule and has
concluded that the rulemaking has no substantial direct effects on
States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States,
or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government as described by E.O. 13132. Therefore, the
Department has concluded that this proposed rule, if finalized, does
not have a sufficient Federalism implication to require further agency
action or analysis.
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2
U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them.
DOL examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement
of policy and determined that it does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
The Department has reviewed this proposed rule under the terms of
E.O. 13175 and DOL's Tribal Consultation Policy and has concluded that
the changes to regulatory text would not have tribal implications.
These changes do not have substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, nor the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Tribal Governments.
G. Plain Language
E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998 (Plain Language in Government Writing), direct executive
departments and agencies to use plain language in all rulemaking
documents published in the Federal Register. The goal is to make the
government more responsive, accessible, and understandable in its
communications with the public. Accordingly, the Department drafted
this NPRM in plain language.
[[Page 28245]]
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 652
Employment, Grant programs--Labor, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor
amends 20 CFR part 652 as follows:
PART 652--ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 652 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. chapter 4B; 38 U.S.C. chapters 41 and 42;
Secs. 189 and 503, Public Law 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22,
2014).
Sec. 652.215 [Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 652.215.
Susan Frazier,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2025-12275 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.