Rescission of Coordinated Enforcement Regulations

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The Department of Labor (Department) is rescinding the regulations that established formal procedures for coordination of enforcement activities among the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Employment and Training Administration (ETA) with respect to migrant and seasonal farmworkers. The Department is rescinding these regulations because they are obsolete, no longer reflect the Department's organizational structure or operational practices, and are not needed for effective coordination among the relevant component agencies. This action will remove unnecessary regulatory burden and align the Department's enforcement strategy with modern, effective, and flexible coordination models already in use.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 167 (Monday, August 31, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55744-55748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17726]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

29 CFR Part 42

Employment and Training Administration

[Docket No. ETA-2025-0003]
RIN 1205-AC27

Wage and Hour Division

RIN 1235-AA50

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

RIN 1218-AD53


Rescission of Coordinated Enforcement Regulations

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration; Wage and Hour Division; 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department) is rescinding the 
regulations that established formal procedures for coordination of 
enforcement activities among the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Employment 
and Training Administration (ETA) with respect to migrant and seasonal 
farmworkers. The Department is rescinding these regulations because 
they are obsolete, no longer reflect the Department's organizational 
structure or operational practices, and are not needed for effective 
coordination among the relevant component agencies. This action will 
remove unnecessary regulatory burden and align the Department's 
enforcement strategy with modern, effective, and flexible coordination 
models already in use.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 30, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding 
responsibilities of the Employment and Training Administration, contact 
Kimberly Vitelli, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, 
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, Room C-
4526, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. For further 
information regarding responsibilities of the Wage and Hour Division, 
contact Daniel Navarrete, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, 
Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, 
telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). For further 
information regarding responsibilities of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, contact Erin Gilmore, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Department of Labor, Room N-3107, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-2100 
(this is not a toll-free number). For persons with a hearing or speech 
disability who need assistance using the telephone system, please dial 
711 to access telecommunications relay services.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and History

    The Department promulgated the regulations at 29 CFR part 42 (Part 
42) in 1980 to improve coordination among its component agencies in 
enforcing protections for migrant farmworkers.\1\ The purpose of the 
regulations is to coordinate activities of the component agencies and 
to ensure effective enforcement efforts under ``the protective 
statutes,'' which included the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act 
(FLCRA) (later repealed),\2\ the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 
and the Fair Labor Standards Act, in order to ``maximize . . . 
effectiveness, yet minimize unnecessary duplication.'' 29 CFR 42.2. 
Specifically, the regulations require the Department to establish and 
maintain several processes and structures, including: (1) a National 
Farm Labor Coordinated Enforcement Committee (National Committee) with 
membership by the Under Secretary of Labor (now the Deputy 
Secretary),\3\ the Solicitor of Labor, ETA, OSHA, and the Employment 
Standards Administration (ESA, a now-defunct agency that incorporated 
WHD at the time the Department promulgated Part 42),\4\ and supported 
by a staff level working group, to review the subagencies' policies and 
enforcement strategies; (2) Regional Farm Labor Coordinated Enforcement 
Committees (Regional Committees); and (3) the development of 
enforcement strategies and coordination plans, both regionally and 
nationally. In addition, the regulations require the Department to 
designate Farm Labor Specialists in WHD and Compliance Officers in OSHA 
to serve as farm labor contact persons, and to collect and review 
specific data pertaining to enforcement of protective statutes to be 
reviewed by the National Committee and to be used to inform future 
agency efforts. The regulations also prescribe specific frequency of 
meetings for the National Committee and the Regional Committees, and 
public attendance at certain of these meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The regulation arose partly in response to litigation filed 
in the 1970s. See 45 FR 39486 (June 10, 1980) (stating that Part 42 
represents part of a settlement agreement concluding litigation in 
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 
Western Region v. Brennan, No. 2010-72 (D.D.C.)).
    \2\ See Public Law 97-470, 523 (1983).
    \3\ Department of Labor Executive Level Conforming Amendments of 
1986, Public Law 99-619, sec. 2(a)(1), 100 Stat. 3491 (Nov. 6, 
1986).
    \4\ In 2009, ESA was dissolved, and the Administrator of the 
Wage and Hour Division was delegated the relevant authorities of the 
Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards. See Sec'y's Order 9-
2009, 74 FR 58836 (Nov. 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For at least a decade after promulgating Part 42 in 1980, the 
Department maintained a National Committee and Regional Committees as 
prescribed in the regulations. The Department subsequently largely 
ceased maintaining those formal committees, although available records 
do not establish precisely when that occurred. Rather, as explained in 
more detail later in this preamble, the Department has since 
implemented more effective mechanisms that do not rely on the specific 
structures of Part 42 to ensure coordinated enforcement of the current 
migrant farmworker laws by WHD, ETA, and OSHA.
    In 2024, a number of advocacy organizations--including commenter 
Sin Fronteras Organizing Project--filed a lawsuit alleging that the 
Department had failed to comply with Part 42. That litigation resulted 
in a settlement agreement in which the Department agreed to take 
certain steps to reconstitute the National Committee and Regional 
Committees and hold public

[[Page 55745]]

meetings ``for as long as the regulations at 29 CFR part 42 are in 
effect and unchanged.'' \5\ The settlement agreement does not bar the 
Department from rescinding or modifying the regulation through the 
rulemaking process. The Department has complied with the settlement 
agreement since its effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, Farm Labor Organizing 
Committee, v. Su, No. 24-706 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2024) (ECF No. 33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposal for Rescission

    On July 1, 2025, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind Part 42 because the regulation imposed 
outdated, unnecessary, and duplicative internal procedures; limited the 
Department's discretion; and prevented the Department's agencies from 
coordinating with regard to migrant farmworkers in more efficient, 
effective ways. 90 FR 28247. As detailed in the NPRM, the Department 
determined that Part 42 imposed stilted procedural mandates and 
organizational requirements that were outdated, had not been utilized 
in decades, and no longer reflected how the Department coordinated 
enforcement activity across its agencies. For instance, Part 42 
referenced historical entities such as ESA, which was eliminated in 
2009, imposed duties on the abolished offices of the Assistant 
Secretary for ESA and the ESA Regional Administrator, relied on 
repealed statutes such as the FLCRA (repealed in 1983), and mandated 
formal structures--such as national and regional enforcement 
committees, quarterly meetings, and designated contact personnel--that 
had long ago fallen into disuse.
    Notwithstanding the dormancy of some structures and components set 
forth in Part 42, the Department has continued to conduct robust and 
effective enforcement related to migrant farmworkers through modern 
coordination mechanisms, including interagency working groups, task 
forces, and new statutory frameworks under the Migrant and Seasonal 
Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) and the Immigration and 
Nationality Act's H-2A nonimmigrant visa program for temporary or 
seasonal agricultural workers. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 1812, 1852; 8 
U.S.C. 1188.
    As described in the NPRM, OSHA has regularly hosted an agriculture 
task force that has engaged with agricultural concerns and issues in 
coordination with representatives from WHD and ETA. The task force was 
designed to identify, review, update, and develop OSHA's agricultural 
guidance products, including regulations and web pages. The task force 
contributed to several new agricultural guidance products over the 
years, including a 2017 update to OSHA's Agricultural Operations Safety 
and Health Topics web page with links to information ranging from heat 
illness prevention to youth employment in agriculture.\6\ Likewise, the 
NPRM stated that other Departmental initiatives reflect the 
Department's ongoing commitment to cross-agency coordination at the 
national and regional levels. For example, ETA Regional Monitor 
Advocates often host meetings for the relevant State Workforce 
Agencies, which representatives from WHD attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor. ``Agricultural Operations--Overview.'' <a href="https://www.osha.gov/agricultural-operations">https://www.osha.gov/agricultural-operations</a>. Accessed June 18, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the NPRM stated that the Department maintains contact 
and exchanges information with farm labor groups and the public on 
issues relating to the employment of migrant and seasonal farmworkers 
on an ongoing basis. As part of the Department's regular stakeholder 
engagement, OSHA, WHD and ETA all maintain contacts and meet with 
farmworker groups, as part of public outreach, roundtables, and 
conferences, at both the national and the regional level. The ETA 
National Monitor Advocate regularly meets with farmworker groups and, 
each year during harvest season, visits States with high numbers of 
migrant and seasonal farmworkers to meet with State Workforce Agencies 
and organizations that represent farmworkers.
    Part 42 reflects an outdated legal landscape and depends on a 
bygone Departmental structure that made it increasingly difficult to 
implement the requirements of the regulation, as drafted. The 
Department further believes that the current coordination efforts of 
OSHA, ETA, and WHD more effectively address the employment-related 
problems faced by migrant farmworkers; are coordinated to maximize 
their effectiveness and minimize unnecessary duplication; and assure 
that employers of migrant farmworkers are complying with the laws that 
the Department enforces. Therefore, the Department suggested in the 
NPRM that Part 42 imposed bureaucratic obligations that did not allow 
for effective and efficient coordination outcomes, and that its 
continued presence in the Code of Federal Regulations was no longer 
necessary.
    Accordingly, the Department proposed to rescind the rule in its 
entirety under its general housekeeping and procedural authority at 5 
U.S.C. 301 and consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192 (Unleashing 
Prosperity Through Deregulation), 90 FR 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025), which 
directs agencies to eliminate unnecessary or obsolete regulations. As 
discussed later in this preamble, after reviewing all eight comments 
received, the Department is finalizing the rule as proposed.

III. Discussion of Final Rule

    The NPRM invited comments from the public concerning this 
rescission of regulations for coordinated migrant farmworker labor law 
enforcement activities; the comment period closed on September 2, 2025. 
During the 60-day public comment period, the Department received a 
total of eight comment submissions. The comments received on the NPRM 
may be viewed at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> by entering docket number 
ETA-2025-0003.
    The Department has considered these comments and has decided to 
finalize the rescission of Part 42 as proposed. After reviewing the 
rule's history, the regulatory record, and the considerations raised by 
commenters, the Department concludes that Part 42 no longer serves a 
meaningful operational purpose, it imposes unnecessary duplication of 
efforts and outdated procedural requirements, and it is not needed to 
ensure effective enforcement of labor protections for migrant 
farmworkers.
    Eight comments were submitted in opposition to the proposed 
rescission. These included submissions from legal advocacy 
organizations, a State interagency committee, nonprofit worker 
advocates, a State Workforce Agency, and one individual. While the 
commenters expressed concern that rescinding Part 42 might weaken 
enforcement or coordination, the Department finds that its proven 
ability to coordinate enforcement for decades without reliance on Part 
42, as described later in this preamble, allays any concern that 
rescinding Part 42 might weaken enforcement or coordination.
    Commenters such as the Association of Farmworker Opportunity 
Programs (AFOP), the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), the 
National Employment Law Project (NELP), Texas RioGrande Legal Aid 
(TRLA), and Michigan's Interagency Migrant Services Committee (IMSC) 
asserted that Part 42 is essential to protect farmworkers and ensure 
cross-agency enforcement coordination. The Department disagrees,

[[Page 55746]]

particularly because the commenters did not acknowledge or take into 
account certain activities and practices that the Department has 
developed over time, as set forth in this rule, or the substantive 
inefficacy of the bureaucratic requirements required. As noted in the 
NPRM and reiterated here, for several years the Department has not 
relied on some of the functions enumerated in Part 42 as it has 
successfully fulfilled the intended purposes of those engagements, both 
internal to the Department and with external stakeholders, through 
other more effective avenues. Although commenters cited a 2017 Midwest 
regional meeting as the most recent example of activity under the rule, 
the Department did not consistently implement these structures until 
the settlement agreement required some activities similar to those 
named in the regulation. The National Committee and Regional 
Committees, coordination plans, and required public meetings were not 
maintained in practice. Instead, the Department has played a key role 
in carrying out the types of enforcement and coordination activities 
intended by the Department when first creating these regulations. 
Examples of Departmental coordination include, but are not limited to, 
participation in monthly Departmental Agriculture Taskforce meetings in 
which component agencies share information about enforcement as well as 
education and outreach activities in agriculture; quarterly Regional 
Agriculture Coordination calls that include regional and national 
representation of each component agency for information sharing; and 
recurring coordination calls among agencies to discuss ongoing and 
emerging issues. Additionally, each agency engages in planning 
enforcement strategies, conducting stakeholder outreach and engagement, 
developing and reviewing policies, providing referrals to appropriate 
agencies, and conducting deconfliction to prevent overlap, resolve 
conflicts, and ensure coordinated, efficient operations.
    For example, OSHA continues to maintain and regularly update its 
Agricultural Operations Safety and Health Topics web page, which 
provides employers and workers with information regarding agricultural 
hazards, OSHA standards applicable to agriculture, hazard controls, 
publications, training materials, and compliance assistance resources. 
OSHA's agricultural guidance addresses hazards including heat exposure, 
grain bins and silos, hazardous machinery, falls, chemicals, 
respiratory hazards, noise exposure, vehicle hazards, and youth worker 
safety. These resources include materials addressing tractor and 
harvester hazards, grain handling hazards, heat illness prevention, 
confined-space hazards on farms, electrocution hazards, emergency 
preparedness, personal protective equipment, and youth worker 
protections in agriculture. OSHA makes these resources available in 
multiple formats, including fact sheets, QuickCards, hazard alerts, 
training materials, and multilingual publications.
    Furthermore, the Department's approach to rulemaking in this space 
reflects its commitment to ongoing coordination. ETA and WHD regularly 
issue joint regulations addressing the needs of farmworkers, and in the 
process meet with stakeholders about the implementation and enforcement 
of those regulations. For example, in 2025, ETA and WHD jointly 
proposed to amend the regulations governing the certification of 
agricultural labor or services performed by H-2A workers and the 
enforcement of the obligations applicable to employers of such 
nonimmigrant workers. See 90 FR 28919 (July 2, 2025). In 2022, WHD and 
ETA issued a joint report to Congress about the Department's 
enforcement related to farm labor contractors. See <a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/h2a/H-2A_Report2022.pdf">https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/h2a/H-2A_Report2022.pdf</a>. Additionally, WHD 
regularly hosts a Virtual Agricultural Seminar that is open to the 
public, provides guidance on Federal labor rules pertaining to the 
agricultural industry, and has at times included representatives from 
ETA.
    Despite the dormancy of some structures and components set forth in 
Part 42, the Department has continued to conduct enforcement actions 
\7\ (e.g., investigations, audits, inspections, site visits) and 
coordinate effectively across WHD, OSHA, and ETA through mechanisms 
that do not rely on Part 42, including those provided by statutes and 
regulations that did not exist when Part 42 was promulgated. These 
include informal working groups, joint investigations, strategic 
referrals, and targeted interagency initiatives, none of which are 
dependent on or enhanced by the mandates in Part 42. The Department 
continues to carry out effective enforcement to safeguard the nation's 
workforce as illustrated by the high violation rate yielded by its 
enforcement actions, many of which involve targeted initiatives to 
focus limited investigative resources on employers that commit 
egregious violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Department's enforcement data are available through the 
Open Data Portal at <a href="https://data.dol.gov/">https://data.dol.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since Part 42 was promulgated in 1980, Congress has enacted major 
statutory frameworks specifically aimed at protecting migrant 
farmworkers. These include MSPA, which established comprehensive labor 
protections for farmworkers and significantly expanded the enforcement 
authority of WHD. Congress also enacted the H-2A visa program under the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, creating a formal process 
for the employment of temporary foreign agricultural workers subject to 
Department-administered labor standards, which necessarily involves 
close collaboration between ETA on the certification side and WHD on 
the enforcement side of the H-2A program. In response, the Department 
has developed detailed regulations, enforcement strategies, and 
staffing structures under both MSPA and H-2A that did not exist when 
Part 42 was adopted. The Department has successfully relied on these 
regulations and programs--that is, the MSPA and H-2A regulations, not 
Part 42--including related outreach, to protect migrant farmworkers. 
The Department maintains its commitment to stakeholder engagement and 
outreach as essential to obtaining meaningful feedback, building trust, 
maintaining strong relationships, and strengthening outcomes. In 
furtherance of those efforts, the Department's activities include, but 
are not limited to, component agencies participating in recurring 
conferences; ad hoc meetings with farmworker advocacy groups and other 
stakeholders; and agricultural initiative outreach work. For example, 
WHD hosts and participates in hundreds of outreach events each year 
where most are led by Community Outreach and Resource Planning 
Specialists (CORPS). CORPS are the primary contacts for stakeholders 
and public engagement and outreach. They schedule in-person and virtual 
events regularly throughout the nation. ETA's Employment Service 
regulations continue to require several coordination points, including 
the referral of complaints to enforcement agencies, cross-referencing 
debarment lists, and discontinuation due to final determinations from 
enforcement agencies.
    Several commenters, including AFOP, CLASP, and IMSC, urged the 
Department to retain and revise Part 42 by updating outdated statutory 
and organizational references (e.g., replacing outdated references to 
the FLCRA or ESA) rather than eliminating the

[[Page 55747]]

regulation entirely. The Department considered this approach but 
concluded that revision is not appropriate. The problems with Part 42 
are not limited to terminology; they extend to the entire regulatory 
framework. The rule mandates organizational structures and processes 
that do not reflect the way the Department has operated for decades. 
Nor do these processes account for new statutes enacted by Congress to 
protect farmworkers. Updating outdated names would not address the fact 
that the core features of the regulation have not been needed in 
decades and are not relevant to current enforcement operations. In 
fact, the rescission of Part 42 enables the Department to minimize 
unnecessary duplication, and to adapt to evolving processes, program 
demands, and realities inherent to the cross-agency coordination and 
engagements with public stakeholders without being limited by processes 
and structures designed over 40 years ago.
    Some commenters, notably TRLA and CLASP, argued that rescinding 
Part 42 could violate the terms of the Department's 2024 court-approved 
settlement agreement in Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Su. The 
Department disagrees. The settlement agreement expressly states that 
its terms apply only ``for as long as the regulations at 29 CFR part 42 
are in effect and unchanged.'' Therefore, the settlement agreement 
explicitly preserves the Department's discretion to modify or rescind 
the regulation through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Department 
has complied with all terms of the settlement agreement since its 
effective date and is under no legal obligation to retain Part 42. 
Rescission is therefore fully consistent with the settlement agreement.
    NELP, TRLA, and others argued that rescission of Part 42 is 
arbitrary and capricious, stating that the Department did not 
sufficiently justify in the NPRM how the regulation posed 
insurmountable restrictions on the Department's enforcement 
capabilities and suggesting that the Department update and revise Part 
42 instead of removing it in its entirety. The Department disagrees. As 
the NPRM and this final rule make clear, the rescission is based on a 
reasoned and well-documented determination: Part 42 has not been 
consistently implemented for decades; its structures are outdated and 
inconsistent with current agency operations, which are centered around 
statutes and regulations that protect migrant farmworkers and were 
enacted after Part 42 was promulgated; it has not contributed to 
enforcement outcomes for decades; and coordination among ETA, WHD, and 
OSHA continues to occur effectively without it. The Administrative 
Procedure Act does not require agencies to retain outdated and 
unnecessary procedural regulations, particularly where enforcement 
activities are demonstrably robust in the regulation's absence. 
Agencies may amend or repeal a rule so long as they provide a reasoned 
explanation for the change. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 
U.S. 211, 221 (2016). Here, where the Department has determined that 
Part 42 was outdated, overly bureaucratic, and unnecessary, and where 
the Department has demonstrated its commitment to robust and effective 
enforcement through modern coordination mechanisms outside of Part 42, 
the Department believes that rescission of Part 42 is reasonable.
    Some commenters, including CLASP and IMSC, expressed concern that 
rescission would eliminate public regional meetings and diminish 
opportunities for stakeholders to engage directly with the Department. 
While the Department values public input and stakeholder engagement, 
mandating a specific meeting structure codified in 1980 is not 
necessary to ensure meaningful communication. Instead, the Department 
has increasingly relied on more flexible and inclusive forms of 
engagement, including stakeholder roundtables, listening sessions, 
direct outreach, electronic communications, and virtual forums. These 
modern approaches reflect current communication practices, enhance 
accessibility, and allow for more timely and responsive interaction 
with farmworker advocates and other stakeholders than formalities born 
of a meeting structure with roots in pre-digital practices. Current 
methods of engagement will continue regardless of the rescission of 
Part 42. Further, the Department's representatives at these engagements 
include personnel from its Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy 
who can hear firsthand from stakeholders and effectively implement 
policy changes consistent with the Department's priorities and 
objectives. Moreover, advocacy groups and any other third party have 
always had, and continue to have, access to the Department, including 
the potential to file a complaint on a worker's behalf. In the 
Department's district offices throughout the nation, many stakeholders 
have collaborative working, symbiotic relationships at the local level.
    The comments opposing rescission were considered in full but do not 
provide a compelling basis for retaining a regulation that is 
unnecessary and no longer reflects the Department's internal structure 
or enforcement strategy. The Department finds that rescinding Part 42 
will promote administrative clarity, eliminate obsolete and unused 
procedural mandates, and support modernized enforcement coordination, 
allowing the Department to continue to be flexible and nimble in 
addressing new challenges and opportunities.
    Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the rescission of Part 42 
in its entirety.

IV. Procedural and Other Matters

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    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 information upon which choices 
can be made by the public.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this 
final rule does not constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not 
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be 
proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, 
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 55748]]

    The Department reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The regulation the Department is rescinding 
pertains to procedures within the Department for the coordination of 
enforcement activities by WHD, OSHA, and ETA relating to migrant 
farmworkers, so there is no impact on small entities. Therefore, the 
Department concludes that the impacts of the rescission would not have 
a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities,'' and that the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rescission imposes no information collection or record-keeping 
requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is 
not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).

D. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 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 examined this rescission and has determined that 
it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.

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.
    The Department examined this rescission according to UMRA and its 
statement of policy and determined that the rescission 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 final rule under the terms of E.O. 
13175 and the Department's Tribal Consultation Policy and has concluded 
that the changes to regulatory text will 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 final rule in plain language.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 42

    Law enforcement, Migrant labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration.

PART 42--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 
5 U.S.C. 301, the Department removes and reserves 29 CFR Part 42.

Marek Laco,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training.

David Keeling,
Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health.

Andrew B. Rogers,
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
[FR Doc. 2026-17726 Filed 8-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre></body>
</html>